The Madras High Court dismissed two Second Appeals by third parties in a landlord-tenant dispute regarding lease renewal and fair rent. The Court held that since the lease had expired and eviction proceedings were completed, no issues remained to be decided.
Both Second Appeals were disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17.12.2018
Coram:
The Honourable Dr.Justice G.JAYACHANDRAN
S.A.No.1644 of 2004 & S.A.No.1030 of 2005
Name substituted vide order of Court dated 27.11.2013 made in CMP Nos.921 & 922 of 2013 in S.A.Nos.1644 of 2004 & 1030 of 2005. 1. S.Medhi Ispahani, 2. Mr.S.Ali Ispahani, 3. Mr.S.Mohamed Ispahani, All residing at No.177, Poonamallee, High Road, Chennai-600 010. ... Respondents in S.A.No.1030 of 2005/ Defendants
S.A.No.1644 of 2004 :
PRAYER: This Second Appeal are filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2003 and made in A.S.No.169 of 1998 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 06.03.1997 made in O.S.No.1833 of 1991 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
S.A.No.1030 of 2005 :
PRAYER: This Second Appeal are filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to setaside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2003 and made in A.S.No.169 of 1998 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 06.03.1997 made in O.S.No.1833 of 1991 on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in so far as it relates to refusal of relief of permanent injuction.
S.A.No.1644 of 2004:
For Appellants : Mr.R.Balachander For Respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
S.A.No.1030 of 2005:
For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi For Respondents: Mr.R.Balachander C O M M O N J U D G E M E N T
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in S.A.No.1644 of 2004 and respondent in S.A.No.1030 of 2005 would submit that pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Court, which is the subject matter of these two Second Appeals, several developments has taken, wherein the landlord who are the Appellants in S.A.No.1644 of 2004 has taken delivery of the suit properties. In these two Second Appeals renewal of the lease period for further period of 20 years and permission to claim fair rent is under challenge. The renewed lease period expired as early as 2007. Fair rent proceedings had culminated in eviction. So, both on facts as well as law, nothing survives in these two Second Appeals.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Second Appeals survive considering the renewed lease period expired and fair rent proceedings culminated in eviction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Mehdi Ispahani and others
M/s. Girdarilal Chandak & Brothers (HUF)
Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
