Chennai Court February 1986 Judgments
Raja Ponnuthambi Vs. K. Augustine and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad97
ORDER1. The question which is res integra is whether the market value of the site is includible in the total cost of the building in fixing fair rent under Sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for brevity the Act, when the landlord is the owner not of the site, but only of the building.2. In this revision, the tenant assails the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras) in R. C. O. P. 1644 of 1983 and affirmed by the appellate authority (IV Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras), in R. C. A. 829 611984 at Rs. 510 per month. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the tenant is that as the landlord is only a lessee of the site Kalikambal Kamateswara Devastanam but not the owner, the market value of the site should not be included in the total cost of the building. This requires examination of Sec. 4 of the Act.'4. Fixation of fair rent (1) The Controller shall on application made by the tenant or the landlord of a...
Tag this Judgment!Singaram Chettiar Vs. Valathammal Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ76
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the petitioner.2. In E.P. No. 20 of 1983 in O.S. No. 72 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai brought by the decree-holder for attachment and sale of the immovable properties, the judgment-debtor claimed, protection under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act No. 50 of 1982. It is relevant to note that the suit is for recovery of the value of the jewels weighing 61 sovereigns entrusted by the decree-holder to the judgment-debtor, as the judgment-debtor failed to return the jewels in specie. The Court below, therefore, held that the judgment-debtor would not be entitled to any protection under the Act' and, therefore, ordered further process in the execution.3. Mr. Palaniappan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit being for recovery of money, the decree-debt will fall within the ambit of 'debt' as defined under Section 3(c) of the Act. Whatever may be the entrustment, the suit having been filed for recovery o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›