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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 357

ABDUL HADI
Mohammed Goni – Appellant
Versus
S. Rathinavel – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:K. Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Santhanam, for M.N. Muthukumaran, Advocates.

Judgment :-

1. These seven Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by three different tenants under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), occupying seven different contiguous “buildings” under the Act. Aggrieved by the concurrent eviction orders passed against them under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, they have preferred these revision petitions.

2. The respondents-landlords, three in number, are common in all the Civil Revision Petitions. The tenant Mohammed Gani is the petitioner in C.R.P. Nos. 1575 and 1579 of 1993, while Edward Danna singh is the petitioner in C.R.P. Nos. 1577, 1578, 1580 and 1581 of 1993 and the tenant Mohammed Khaja Mohideen is the tenant in C.R.P. No. 1576 of 1993. (Door numbers involved in these civil revision petitions are 267, 269, 270, 271 and 272). The Authorities below have mainly found that the condition of the building in each case warrants demolition and reconstruction and hence ordered eviction.

3. The same Counsel appears for the petitioners in all the revision petitions and his submissions are:—Enhancement of rent is alone the motive for the landlords filing these petitions. Even the 2nd















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