Revision filed by tenant against eviction order based on non-residential use. Court held landlady's requirement to shift business shop for water availability was bonafide and upheld eviction allowing nine months time to vacate.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; tenant granted nine months time to vacate immediately.
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.
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.03.2024
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
E.Venkatraman
... Petitioner
-Versus-
K.Prabadevi Ammal ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 to set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate authority in RCA.No.2 of 2011 dated 13.12.2013 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vellore (Sub Court, Vellore), confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned Rent Controller, Vellore, (In the court of Principal District Munsif, Vellore) made in RCOP.No.56 of 1998 dated 06.12.2010.
For petitioner : Mr.P.Seshadri For Respondent : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the learned rent control appellate authority at Vellore.
1 of 8
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
the town of Vellore.
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
at Vellore. He would state that since the requirement is not bonafide, eviction must not have been ordered.
since the landlady seeks to occupy the suit schedule premises because of the availability of water supply which is essential for the purpose of running her business in sweet meats. He would also point out that it is not in dispute that the landlady and her family are running sweet meat shop, even as on the date of filing of the rent control petition. Being a concurrent finding of the fact, this Court does not interfere with the exercise of powers under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
me, while dismissing the appeal filed by the tenant in S.A.No.776 of 2013. By virtue of her purchase of the property, there is a statutory attornment of tenancy from the Civil Revision Petitioner in favour of the respondent/landlady. This is by virtue of Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act.
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
5 of 8
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
19.03.2024
nl
Index : yes / no Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order
6 of 8
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
To
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
C.R.P.No.400 of 2014
19.03.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the requirement of the landlady under Section 10(3)(A)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was bonafide.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.K.V.S.L. Mahadevan vs. Lathif MoosaReferred¶13
_T.K.V.S.L. Mahadevan vs. Lathif Moosa, 2009 5 LW 264_
3 provisions across 2 enactments
E.Venkatraman
K.Prabadevi Ammal
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
