Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)1MLJ267
orderthangamani, j.1. tenants who have lost in both the courts below have come forward with this civil revision petition. present respondent instituted r.c.o.p. no. 10 of 1988 in the court of rent controller (district munsif), mayiladuthurai seeking eviction under sections 10(2) (ii) (b) and 10(2)(iii) of tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act 18 of 1960 on the allegations that the revision petitioners are using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased and that they have committed acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. it is the case of the landlord that the demised property is the ground floor measuring 10' x 95' of door no. 5, second street, mayiladuthurai town. this non-residential premises was let out to the revision petitioners under ex.p-1 agreement dated 31.7.1978 for the purpose of running textile shop, jewellery shop and medical shop for a period of 15 years from 1.7.1978 on a monthly rent ranging from rs. 1,000 to rs. 1,238 as specified therein. however, contrary to the terms of the tenancy revision petitioners are running a pawnbroker's shop in the premises without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. besides they have carried out structural alteration in the building in respect of windows, doors, almirahs and angles. they have lowered the floor space below the road level. they have also raised a wall in the verandah thereby putting in a barricade between the verandah portion .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ208
orderar. lakshmanan, j.1. the matter arises under the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the act). the case has a chequered history. the landlady who filed the eviction petition in august, 1982 is still longing for justice1 in this court. the matter came up before this court on an earlier occasion in revision filed by the tenant, which was disposed of by this court on 13.11.1987 by remitting the matter back to the appellate authority to consider the question whether the tenant has put a substantial portion of the building to a different user in the light of the observations made in the order. both parties were given due opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence on this aspect of the matter alone. after remand, evidence was let in, both oral and documentary. the appellate authority on a careful consideration of the evidence placed, both oral and documentary rejected the appeal r.c.a. no. 622 of 1983 by his order, dated 25th march, 1991. the tenant/first petitioner (t.s. arulroyer (deceased)) has filed the present civil revision petition before this court and the same was admitted on 24.7.1991. during the pendency of this civil revision petition, the tenant/first petitioner, t.s. arulroyer died and his son and two grandsons through his son were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4, and as the legal representatives of the first petitioner, t.s. arulroyer as per the order of this court, dated 6.3.1996 in c.m.p. no. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1981)23CTR(Cal)276,[1983]139ITR1(Cal)
..... the photostat copy of the images has been made a part of the paper book. ..... 66 of the paper book. ..... 64 of the paper book and the will executed by her on 24th agrahayan, 1249 b.s. ..... 59 of the paper book, the postscript executed by the said smt. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC397
..... luggage from village jasoh to the place of petitioner-husband which was permitted as per the note appended on the said application and both of them are also given in writing exhibit pw3/a and b on the stamp paper about their marriage. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)ALT583
ordervilas v. afzulpurkar, j.1. this revision is preferred by the tenant against the order of eviction passed by the learned additional chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad, in r.a. no. 4 of 2001, dated 15-2-2005, setting aside the dismissal order of the learned iii additional rent controller passed in r.c. no. 528 of 1996, dated 11-10-2000.2. the tenant is the petitioner and the respondent is the landlady. the parties are herein after referred to as landlady and tenant, respectively, for the sake of convenience.3. the brief facts of the case are as follows:the respondent herein is the owner and landlady of the schedule premises, which was gifted to her by her mother under a registered gift deed, ex.p-1, dated 27-12-1988. the tenant is in possession of the premises under a rental deed, ex.p-3, in urdu with its true translation being ex.p-4, dated 16-01-1962. the case of the landlady in brief is that her husband who is a qualified civil engineer, has since retired and wishes to provide consultancy services in civil works, to maintain the family, and as such, the premises is bona fide required by her. she claims that she does not have any other premises. it is also claimed that the schedule mulgi is an old construction and is in dilapidated condition and as such it is necessary to demolish it and reconstruct a new building and for that the petitioner is prepared to comply with the terms of the requirement of law, if such requirement is upheld by the court. it is also .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1977]39STC121(All)
..... the controversy between the parties was whether or not biscuits wrapped in special packing paper, closed with gum at the ends or sides of the paper packets and with labels bearing the trade mark of the manufacturer pasted at those ends, can be regarded as biscuits sold in sealed containers. ..... hence it becomes unnecessary to decide whether the special paper packing, in which the biscuits manufactured by the assessee are sold, can be regarded as sealed containers. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1981Ori42; 51(1981)CLT87
..... the plaintiff also did not get the stamp paper and never asked the defendant to execute and register the sale deed. ..... it is argued by the defendant-respondent that plaintiff has not offered stamp paper or the draft sale deed to the defendant. ..... in such circumstances, it was not possible on the part of the plaintiff to offer the draft sale deed or purchase the stamp paper for the document. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1534; (1975)2SCC326; [1975]3SCR967
..... quite a few of the wife's relatives including a younger sister of hers and of course her maternal uncle have set their pen to paper touching some aspect or the other of her married life. ..... (12) not to finish work somehow or the other; for example to write letters in good hand writing, to take a good paper, to write straight and legibly in a line. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALD92(SC); 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)485; (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN45; 2008(5)CTC260; JT2008(9)SC12; (2009)2MLJ526(SC); 2008AIRSCW4829; 2008(8)SCC564; 2008(4)CivilLJ391; 2008(4)Supreme360; 2008(4)LH(SC)2617; 2008(3)ICC816.
tarun chatterjee, j.1. these two appeals are directed against the common final judgment and order dated 18th of may, 2001 of the high court of calcutta passed in f.a. nos. 39-40 of 1999 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11th of november, 1998 passed by the asstt. district judge, 9th court at alipore, south 24 parganas whereby the two suits namely, title suit no 19/92 and 39/92 filed at the instance of the appellant were dismissed.2. the facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are narrated in a nutshell as follows:m/s. k.b. saha & sons pvt. ltd. (in short 'the appellant') brought title suit no. 19/92 before the 9th court of the asstt. district judge, alipore, south 24 parganas against m/s. development consultants ltd. (in short 'the respondent') alleging, inter alia, that the appellant was the owner of premises no. 28/8, gariahat road, within police station lake in the district of south 24 parganas (hereinafter called 'the suit property'). by a memorandum dated 30th of march, 1976, the respondent became a tenant in respect of a flat, as fully described in schedule-a of the plaint, in the suit property (hereinafter called 'the suit premises') for the residential accommodation of a particular officer mr. keshab das and members of his family and for no other purpose. the monthly rent was fixed at rs. 1100/-, which included the rent of fixtures, fittings and parking place payable in advance by 5th of the current month for which the rent became due. the monthly rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj15
ordersarjoo prosad, c.j. 1. the defendant petitioner has moved in this case for setting aside an order of the learned district judge, jodhpur, shri p. n. shinghal, dated 10-9-1959.2. the order relates to a suit filed by three persons mansukhram, sita ram and jassu bharti under section 92 of the c. p. c. an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was also presented along with the plaint on 24-9-1954, and after due enquiries it appears that by an order dated 9-4-1935, the predecessor-in-office of the learned district judge allowed the application for leave to sue as pauper. thereafter the suit proceeded to trial, and after the entire evidence had been closed on 23-7-1959. and a date had been fixed for arguments, two applications were presented on behalf of the petitioner.one was to the effect that there was no regular presentation of the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis as required by order xxxiii, rule 8, of the c. p. c., and the other was that a suit under section 92 of the code could not be instituted in forma pauperis. the learned district judge rejected both these pleas, and he rightly commented that such pleas could not be entertained at that late stage of the suit when leave to sue had already been granted and the case had proceeded to trial, and the evidence of the parties hod been closed.3. what happened actually was that a joint plaint had been filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs under section 92 of the c.p.c. at the same time there was a .....
Tag this Judgment!