N.SATHISH KUMAR
Hateemy Sales Corporation, Rep. By its Prop. Husseni (deceased) – Appellant
Versus
R. Sudhakar – Respondent
1. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the Courts below in ordering eviction under section 10(3) (a) (iii) and Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 on the ground of for own use, act of waste of the petition mentioned property and causing nuisance to the occupants, the present revisions have been filed.
2. Since both the Rent Control appeals are arising out of a common judgment passed by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority, this Court is also inclined to dispose of both the revisions in a common Order. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of RCOP.No.1290 of 2000 subject matter of CRP.No.204 of 2013 is as follows :
The petitioner is carrying on business of cement products and tiles under the name and style of M/s.Cement Concrete Works in Royapettah. The owners of the land and building have already issued notice to vacate the petitioner from the premises. Besides the petitioner is also carrying on business in computer training and internet center under the name and style of M/s.Internet Services in Triplicane High Road. The said premi
A.Duraiswami Vs. A.Arumugham reported in 1997 (2) MLJ 401
A.Gurusami Vs. Dr.(Mrs.) A.Jacob (died) and others reported in 1998 1 LW 651
C.R.Subramaniam Vs. N.Vasudevan reported in 1998 (II) CTC 211
Pratap Rai Tanwani and another Vs. Uttam Chand and another reported in 2004 (8) SCC 490
A. Duraiswamy v. A. Arumugham (1997) 2 LW 346
C.R.Subramaniam Vs. N.Vasudevan reported in 1998 (II) CTC 211
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.