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

1961 Supreme(Mad) 269

S.RAMACHANDRA.IYER
Danakoti Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
M. M. Duraisamy Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
K. V. Srinivasa Ayyar, for Petitioners.
S. Thyagaraja Ayyar, for Respondent.

Judgment. -

The learned District Judge has set aside the Order of the Appellate Authority fixing the fair rent under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 and remanded the cases to the Rent Controller for disposal in accordance with the provisions of Madras Act (XVIII of 1960). Mr. K. V. Srinivasa Ayyar, who contests the correctness of the order of the lower Court on behalf of the petitioner, contends first that the lower Court had no power of directing a remand. It has been held in several cases that the power of remand is an inherent power in a Court exercising appellate jurisdiction. The jurisdiction exercised by the District Judge under section 12-B of the Act of 1949 is though revisional, appellate in character. It would follow that the Court sitting in Revision would be competent to remand the cases for fresh disposal. In the present case the learned District Judge has considered the relevant matters and come to the conclusion that the basis adopted by the Appellate Authority in fixing the fair rent even at less than the contract rate was erroneous. There can possibly be no exception to that finding. From that it follows that the order of th



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