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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 5

S.S.SUBRAMANI
P. Vasuvaithiar – Appellant
Versus
R. M. Rangoo Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B. Soundarapcmdian for Petitioner, B. Ramamoorthy for Respondent

Judgment :-

1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. 4 of 1994 on the file of Rent Controller, Uthagamandalam is the revision petitioner.

2. Landlord claimed eviction on the ground that tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and the said default is wilful.

3. Between same parties, there was earlier litigation as R.C.O.P. 129 of 1989, where also landlord claimed eviction on the ground that tenant committed default in payment of rent. In that petition, landlord claimed that tenant has not paid rent from 1.3.1983 to 31.8.1989 for a period of 78 months and an amount of Rs. 25, 350/- is due. In that case. Rent Controller as well as appellate authority found that the case of landlord that rent was not paid from 1.3.1983 is not true and default wasonlyfrom 1.3.1987 at the rateof Rs. 325/- per month. Since tenant has paid entire amount from 1.3.1987 Rent Controller found that tenant is not liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. The matter was also confirmed in appeal.

4. In the present application, landlord alleged that from 1.3.1987 till 31.12.1993 total rent payable is Rs. 26,650/-, out tenant has paid only Rs. 18,525 during the course of proceedings in R.C.O.P. 121 of 1989. According to lan
















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