V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Sha Poosaji Mangilal – Appellant
Versus
The South Indian Humanitarian League, represented by its Secretary – Respondent
Common Order:
1. The respondent/landlord filed a petition in RCOP No.1745 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller, Chennai, under Section 4 of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the building in the occupation of the petitioner/tenant. By an order dated 30.4.2004, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.38,693/- per month.
2. Contending that the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller was low, the respondent/landlord filed RCA No.812 of 2004. Similarly, the petitioner/tenant filed RCA No.1577 of 2004. Both the appeals were taken up together and by a common judgment dated 19. 2005, the Appellate Authority dismissed the tenants appeal and allowed the landlords appeal enhancing the fair rent to Rs.53,190/-. Aggrieved by the said decision, the tenant has come up with the present civil revision petitions.
3. I have heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/tenant and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/landlord.
4. At the outset, Mr. T.V. Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant, raised the question of maintainability
1. Lalta Prasad Vs. Brahmanand AIR 1953 All 449 (DB)
4. Vijayakumar Vs. Roman Catholic Church 2001 (2) L.W. 736
9. T.V. Angappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2006 (3) MLJ 1073
12. S.Kandaswamy Chettiar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1985 (1) SCC 290
10. P.J.Irani Vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 SC 1731
113. Lachoo Mal Vs. Radhye Shyam AIR 1971 SC 2213 (Relied)
115. S.M.Mahendra & Co -vs- State of Tamilnadu 1985 (1) SCC 395
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.