Chennai Court June 1976 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hajee Abdullah Sait Vs. Mohandas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad218; (1977)1MLJ191
P.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. This appeal in filed against the order of the City Civil Court in C. M. P. No. 41 of 1975 (in O. S. No. 30323 of 1961), an application under S. 47 of Civil P. C. filed by the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor praying for an order that the decree in S. A. No. 83 of 1965 was not executable under S. 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960). The court accepted the contention and allowed the petition holding that the decree in the second appeal (S. A. No. 83 of 1965) in favour of the appellant herein was not executable. The decree-holder has now preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal.2. The only question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the respondents are tenants entitled to the benefits of S. 10 of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. It is necessary to set out the relevant facts in this dispute between landlord and tenant which commenced in 1961 and has lasted for over fifteen years. O...
B.S. Perumal Chetti and Brothers and anr. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad137; (1977)1MLJ19
1. These two appeals are preferred by the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 624 and 625 of 1976.2. The appellants filed the writ petitions praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari and to quash the orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1998 Home dated 12-8-1974. The appellants were the tenants under the second respondent. Under Sec. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the Government exempted all buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious trusts and charitable institutions from the provisions of the said Act. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants on the ground that it violated Arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and that in any even it violated the principles of natural justice in so far as orders of exemption were passed without notice to the affected tenants. Ramanujam J. dismissed the writ petitions, and hence these appeals.3. Mr. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the confining of the exemption under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›