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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 659

K.GOVINDARAJAN
R. Govindhammal & Others – Appellant
Versus
A. Nirmala – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: For the Appellant:R. Govindaraj, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----

Judgment :-

The tenants having suffered an order of eviction before the Authorities below have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. The respondent/landlady filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.60 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller (II Additional District Munsif), Trichy under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground that the petitioners/tenants have not paid the rent from the month of December, 1996 onwards. Though the tenants have come forward with the plea in the counter that they paid the rent till August, 1999 and thereafter, the Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence found that the tenants paid rent only till August, 1999 and thereafter, the rent was not paid. On appeal by the tenants, the learned the Appellate authority confirmed the same. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

3. The above facts are not in dispute. The only reason stated by the tenants is that though the said amount was sent, it was not received. But, admittedly, the tenants have not filed any petition under Section 8 to deposit the said amount. The fact remains that the tenants have not paid rent for 7 months from September, 1999 to March, 2000. As stated alr

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