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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 1625

J.NISHA BANU
A. Rajaram – Appellant
Versus
P. Chinnakani – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Murugan.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant against the order, dated 21.09.2017, passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2016 by the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, whereby and whereunder the learned Rent Controller has held that the rental agreement, which wants to be marked on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, has to be referred to the District Collector under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act for proper valuation and payment of stamp duty.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) According to the respondent/landlord, he had purchased the dismissed premises and also the nearby premises, where he has been running a travel business and the revision petitioner/tenant has already been informed about the change of ownership. In order to expand the business, the respondent/landlord required that demised premises. When the respondent/landlord had sent a notice demanding vacant possession of the demised premises, the revision petitioner/tenant has sent a reply notice with the false allegation that under unregistered lease agreement, he has given a sum of Rs.12 lakhs as advance to the previous owner



















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