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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 673

P.THANGAVEL
S. N. Vairavelu – Appellant
Versus
P. Sundaram – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.A. Lakshmipathi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. K.P. Ashok, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2000 and made in R.C.A.No.1230 of 1996 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras reversing the order dated 8.9.1994 and made in R.C.O.P.No.2638 of 1992 on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. 2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:- The Respondent herein who is the petitioner before the Rent Control Court and appellant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, is the landlord of the premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition and the revision petitioner who is the respondent before the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the tenant of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.228. The revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the period from September, 1991 to August, 1992. The premises was let out for running a laundry under the name and style of “Ravindra Dry Cleaners” by the revision petitioner, but the said premises was converted to carry on milk business unde




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