Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ477
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these revisions are against the same judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore. C.R.P. No. 3299 of 1991 is filed under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act, and the other Revision, namely, C.R.P. No. 489 of 1992 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The material facts may be summarised as follows:Revision petitioner is the landlord of the building. There was an earlier proceeding between the same parties for immediate demolition and reconstruction of the building which was then in existence. Even at the time when the present respondent was a tenant of the then building, he was occupying an area of 736 sq. ft. eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner was allowed, and the respondent herein filed a Rent Control Appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also confirmed the order, and a revision taken to this Court also met with the same fate. Later, the respondent herein filed a Special Leave...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(2)CTC129; (2003)2MLJ164
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. 1. In all these writ petitions the validity of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2 of 1996) whereunder Clause (f) was added to the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act 3 of 1922) is being challenged. Under the said Amendment Act 2 of 1996 the properties owned by the religious institutions are exempted from the purview of the Act 3 of 1922.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the property belonging to various religious institutions. The Division Bench referred these cases by their order dated 15.10.1996 to a larger Bench, as a doubt is raised as to whether the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, 1972 (85) L.W 760 dealt with the right of the tenants under Section 9 of the main Act 3 of 1922 alone or also dealt with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(4)CTC657
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, by consent of parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.2. The petitioners in W.P.No.4248 of 2001 are the students of the first respondent college namely K.K.College of Pharmacy, Saligramam, Chennai. The said college is functioning from the academic year October 1992. Initially it was approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu and was recognised by the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi under the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pharmacy Act') to impart education in Bachelor of Pharmacy course. In view of the enactment of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE Act'), the said college was approved by the Council constituted under the said Act from the year 1994 and was affiliated to Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, and there was no approval from the Pharmacy Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1030Mad; (1992)IIMLJ573
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. I. Introduction : By an order of reference dated April 23, 1992, a Division Bench referred seven of the above writ petitions to a larger Bench. The Honourable the Chief Justice constituted this Bench for hearing the cases. The matters were listed for orders on April 30, 1992 and with the consent of counsel, we fixed the date of hearing as June 22, 1992. At the instance of counsel appearing in the other writ petitions, the Honourable the Chief Justice directed those matters also to be posted before us as the questions involved are common. When the matters were heard, 18 writ petitions were posted in all for hearing. In the course of the hearing, it was pointed out that several writ petitions had been filed for similar reliefs by persons in similar position after the Division Bench heard the matters and reserved orders and before it made the order of reference. Counsel had no objection to our passing orders on those writ petitions too, as no further argument was inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995(2)CTC26
ORDERKanakaraj, J. 1. The petitioners do not dispute the fact that they had encroached on the Main Road in Mettur Dam years ago. The respondent Town Panchayat had been collecting encroachment fees. In the year 1990, the respondent took steps to evict the petitioners. W.P. Nos. 3892, 4836 and 4837 were filed in 1991 and these Writ Petitions were allowed as follows:'In case, the petitioners are encroachers, it is open to the Mettur Town Committee, Mettur Dam, Salem District, to take action against the petitioners according to law, after giving notice to the petitioners. It is also well settled that even assuming that the petitioners are encroachers, procedure prescribed for eviction of encroachment had to be followed before dispossessing the encroachers.'Thereafter notices were issued in June, 1992 Under Section 182(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act) giving 15 days to remove the encroachments. Though the Mettur Town is governed by the Mettur Townshi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC741
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1995 made in A.S.No. 249 of 1989 by the single Judge of the appellate forum of this Court allowing the above appeal preferred by the respondent herein against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1988 made in O.S.No. 4 of 1987 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal thereby dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein praying 'for the recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant, who is the appellant before us. 2. The respondent herein has filed the suit before the trial Court contending that on.7.4.1980 he purchased a building site and for the purpose of constructing the building, he entered into Ex.A.1 agreement deed dated 20.3.1995 with the appellant thereby agreeing, on certain terms and conditions, to construct a shop structure in an extent of 16' x 17' and to lease out the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1962)1MLJ441
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a premises in Madras, and the respondent is his tenant in that premises. The respondent filed an application before the Rent Controller under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949 seeking to have fair rent fixed for the said premises. After an enquiry into the matter the Controller fixed the fair rent in a certain amount. The petitioner aggrieved by the said decision filed an appeal, H.R.A. No. 272 of 1959 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The respondent was duly served with notice of appeal and the appeal was posted for final hearing on 3rd November, 1959. The respondent failed to appear on that date before the appellate authority with the consequence that he was declared ex parte, and the appeal was allowed. On the next day, 4th November, 1959 the respondent filed an application, M.P. No. 2321 of 1959, before the appellate authority, the Court of Small Causes at Madras, for setting aside the exparte ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(1)CTC620; (1996)IIMLJ96
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in C. No. 239 of 1982, on the file of this Court, is the appellant. Plaintiff therein is the respondent.2. For the sake convenience, in this appeal parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. Plaintiff filed the above suit for the following relief:-(1) for specific performance of the contract for sale of the house and premises No. 106, Harrington Road, Madras-31 and in default direct the office of the Hon'ble Court to have the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff; (2) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and premises No. 106, or reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper; and (4) for costs of this suit'.4. The suit was filed on 22.4.1982, on the following allegations:-The schedule property admittedly belongs to the appellant and the same was taken on lease by Needle Industries (India) Ltd., for accommodating the office -cum-residence of its director and Secretary, and he came to occupy th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1970Mad291
Ganesan, J. 1. The landlord Is the revision petitioner herein and he is aggrieved that the Subordinate Judge of Madurai had by his judgment in A. S. 221 of 1967 reversed the judgment of the District Munsif of Melur in O. S. 222 of 1966 and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 835-30 proved to have been spent by the respondent tenant.2. The respondent Is running a tea shop in the eastern and northern portion of a building at a monthly rent of Rs. 40, The flooring of the respondent's portion was made of mud and the walls also similarly were made of mud, and the premises have a common thatched roof with the other two portions of the building. As the petitioner landlord refused to renovate the roof which was leaking in the rains and to repair the mud floor and to put walls in the place of the mud walls which had fallen in spite of his requests and a notice, the respondent renewed the entire thatched roof which was common to his premises as well as the other portions of the building, demolishe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)2MLJ310
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Certain facts are necessary for the purpose of dealing with the question raised in this writ petition. The first respondent on the basis that he is the landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act filed H.R.C. No. 1533 of 1978 for eviction of the petitioners under the Rent Control Act. One of the grounds urged for eviction was wilful default in the payment of rents. The first respondent took out M.P. No. l806 of 1978 under Section 11(3) of the Rent Control Act to stop further proceedings in H.R.C., if the petitioners herein, the respondents in H.R.C. No. 1533 of 1978, did not deposit the arrears of rent. The Controller under the Rent Control Act directed the deposit within a stipulated time. Obviously, the arrears of rent were not deposited and M.P. No. 1806 of 1978 was allowed and consequently an order of eviction was passed in H.R.C. N...
Tag this Judgment!