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

1965 Supreme(Mad) 336

M.NATESAN
R. Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
A. D. Peter – Respondent


Advocates:
T. R. Tyagarajan, for Petitioner.
V. Ganapathi Subramania Iyer, for Respondent.

Order.-

This revision has been preferred under section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act by the landlord whose application under section 14(1)(b) of the Act, for eviction of the respondent with a view to demolish and reconstruct, has been rejected in limine by the authorities below, in the view that the provisions of section 14(1)(b) can be availed of, only when the landlord seeks possession of the entire building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and not when only possession of a part of the building is sought. The brief facts my be stated. The petitioner owns a building in the city with an open terrace. The ground floor is let out to a tenant who is not a party to this proceeding. On the terrace, there is a thatched shed, of which the respondent is stated to be the tenant. The landlord applied for possession of this terrace with the thatched shed under section 14(1)(b), submitting that he intended immediately demolishing the shed and putting up a pucca structure thereon. Whether it is bona fide required by him for demolition and reconstruction has not as a fact been gone into. Learned Counsel for the re






















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