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

1949 Supreme(Mad) 329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P.V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Chandra Reddi, JJ.
R. Venkatesachary
Versus
The Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras
C.M.P. No. 3985 of 1949.
Decided On : 13 October 1949

Advocates:
V.V. Devanathan for Petitioners.
G. Chandrasekhara Sastri and G. Venkatesayya for 2nd Respondent.

Order

There is no error of jurisdiction or an apparent error of law on the face of the record. The appellate tribunal has found that the landlord required the entire house for his occupation. Though the definition of a building in the Act includes a portion of a building, it does not mean that the owner of a house, portions of which have been let separately, cannot file an application for obtaining possession of the entire house as a building. What is sufficient for the landlord is not the real question, but whether he requires the entire building bona fide for his occupation. The finding that he requires it in this case is a finding of fact. The application is therefore dismissed with costs.

K.S. ----- Petition dismissed.


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 Back to top