Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
C.Santhosh – Appellant
Versus
V.Dinakaran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction based on non-establishment of landlord-tenant relationship. (Para 2 , 4 , 9) |
| 2. petitioner's claims of lease and payment insufficient to counter eviction. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. court's limited jurisdiction does not permit interference with lower court's findings. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
ORDER
The petitioner/tenant, who has suffered concurrently before the Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal is the petitioner herein.
2. I have heard Mr.N.Srinivas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and Mr.T.N.Rangesh Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.
3. Mr.N.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would at the outset state that without even establishing a landlord-tenant relationship, the respondent has invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 , Act 42 of 2017 (in short 'TNRRRLT Act') and sought for eviction under Section 21 (2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. Mr.N.Srinivas, learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner was a lessee under one Radhabai and the petitioner had in fact parted with a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as the lease amount, with no obli
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
