SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1287

M.THANIKACHALAM
Vairam – Appellant
Versus
M. S. R. Nageswaran – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. A. Sivaji, Advocate for Petitioners M. Vallinayagam, Advocate for Respondent

Judgment :-

1. The tenants are the revision petitioners in all these Civil Revision Petitions.

2. The respondent in all the Civil Revision Petitions, has filed R.C.O.P. Nos. 38/1999, 42/1999 and 45/1999 before the Rent Controller, Virudhunagar, for eviction of the tenants/revision petitioners on the grounds that the building is required for demolition and reconstruction and for additional accommodation, invoking the provisions in Sections 14(1)(b) and 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).

3. All the petitions, were opposed by the tenants, contending that the building is not bona fidely required for the landlord for the extension of his business, after demolishing and reconstruction and that the additional accommodation sought for is also not true and that the hardship, which may be caused to the tenants by granting an order of eviction will outweigh the advantage to the landlord, with among other grounds.

4. The Rent Controller, who decided the cases separately, came to the conclusion that the building is required for the landlord for the purpose of additional accommodation, as contemplated under Section 10(3)(c) of t

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top