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

1964 Supreme(Mad) 286

P.S.KAILASAM
V. Seethalakshmi Ammal – Appellant
Versus
P. R. Rajammal – Respondent


Advocates:
K. S. Champakesa Iyengar and K. C. Srinivasan, for Petitioner.
K. Gopalachari for O. V. Natesan, for Respondents.

ORDER.-

The petition is filed by the tenant against the order of the District Judge Madurai, fixing Rs. 120 as the fair rent for the premises. The respondents, who were the petitioners before the Rent Controller, Madurai Town, filed a petition for fixing the fair rent at Rs. 350 per month. The present petitioner, who was the respondent before the Rent Controller, resisted the application and submitted that the rent of Rs 32-8-0, which she was paying, was the proper rent. She also submitted that the landlords agreed for fixing the rent at Rs. 32-8-0 and, therefore, it was not open to the landlords to ask for enhanced rent now. It is unnecessary to consider the contentions raised by the tenant, as the petition has to be remanded to the Rent Controller for disposal again on a legal objection taken by the petitioner.

In deciding the question of fair rent, the Rent Controller based his conclusion on the report submitted by a Commissioner appointed by him. After referring to the accommodation in the premises, the Rent Controller also accepted the report regarding the location, depreciation, etc. It is admitted that the Rent Court is not a civil Court and the Civil Procedure Code is not ap



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