M.THANIKACHALAM
Vairam – Appellant
Versus
M. S. R. Nageswaran – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.