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

1985 Supreme(Mad) 325

M.N.CHANDURKAR
A. G. Punyakoti – Appellant
Versus
M. Meera Bai – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N.C. Raghavachari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N. Srivatsamani, Advocate.

Judgment :-

These revision petitions disclose how mechanically additional documentary evidence has been accepted and acted upon by the appellate authority who was dealing with two appeals filed by the landlady and the tenant respectively. This order disposes of two revision petitions filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction which is made against him by the appellate authority on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide need of the landlady of the premises in question for her own occupation. The Rent Controller had accepted the case of the landlady with regard to the wilful default, but had rejected the claim on the ground of owner’s occupation. Since a decree for eviction was passed, the tenant filed an appeal challenging the decree for eviction and the landlady also filed an appeal because her claim for bona fide requirement of the premises in question for her own occupation was rejected. Both these appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by the appellate authority.

2. Admittedly, the landlady was a resident of Gobichettipalayam, Coimbatore Dt. as will be clear from a notice given by her on the 15th March, 1982. She filed a petition on the 25th June, 1982, clai

























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