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

1962 Supreme(Mad) 228

VEERASWAMI
K. I. Kangu – Appellant
Versus
Ahmed Unnissa Begum – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Veeraswami, J.

1. On the ground that the respondent bona fide required a portion: of the premises No. 80/3, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Madras, the petitioner who has been a tenant therein for about 10 years has been directed to be evicted and this order was confirmed in appeal. This petition is directed against the eviction The requirement of owner's occupation was rested on the basis that the petitioner's-son-in-law who is a practising medical man wants the portion for opening a clinic. It is common ground that the petitioner's only daughter is living with her in the other portions of the house and has grand-children by her. It is also common, ground that the son-in-law is living with her along with his wife and children. The Courts below were of the view that the words " his own occupation " in Section 7(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, should be read in a liberal sense and that so read, the instant case would also fall within the ambit of those words. In this Revision the propriety of this view is canvassed by the tenant.

2. Clause (i) of Sub-section (3)(a) to Section 7 pertains to the ground of requirement of the premises for owner's occupation








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