Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)1MLJ42
..... . otherwise, the mere declaration granted by this court on paper would really be an exercise in futility .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995(1)CTC47
orderthangamani, j.1. tenants who have lost in both the forums below have come forward with this civil revision petition. present respondent instituted r.c.o.p. no. l0 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'x95' of door no. 5, second street, mayiladuthurai town. this non-residential premises was let out to the revision petitioner 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. 1000/- to rs. 1238/- as specified therein. however, contrary to the terms of the tenancy revision petitioners are running a pawn-broker'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 .....
Tag this Judgment!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 : [1996(73)FLR1354]
..... contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contract is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the management, not the immediate contractor..' 51. ..... ., to the contractor produced at page 43 of the typed set of papers in writ petition no ..... learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the letters, dated december 20, 1992 & october 28, 1992, produced at pages 43 and 44 of the typed set of papers in writ appeal no. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)2MLJ514
..... if the second defendant was in a position to assign the property claiming as his own regarding the very same property alleged to have been conveyed earlier, it can be presumed that the transactions are only on paper, and they have not come into effect. ..... in that case, the question raised was under the representation of the people act, 1951, regarding rejection or acceptance of a nomination paper. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(1)CTC415; (1996)IMLJ328
orders.s. subramani, j.1. defendant in o.s. no. 1742 of 1981, on the file of the district munsif's court, dindigul is the appellant herein. respondent herein, who is his brother, filed the said suit for partition of b schedule property on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by their father arulappan servai on 31.10.1963. it is in evidence that arulappan servai had children other than the parties to the suit. he died in 1964. on the basis of the will, the plaintiff claimed half right in the property and wanted partition of the same.2. the appellant disputed the genuineness of the will and also contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.3. the trial court, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion on that the plaintiff is entitled to half right on the basis of the will, but dismissed the suit on the ground that there are other sharers who also should have been made parties to the suit. a finding was entered on the basis that there are other properties also to be partitioned.4. against the dismissal, the plaintiff preferred a.s. no. 51 of 1984, on the file of the district judge, madurai north at dindigul. the lower appellate court reversed the said decision and passed a preliminary decree. the lower appellate court held that in so far as the b schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff and defendant alone are the legatees under the will, and to effect partition of the same, no other party need be implcadcd in the suit. a preliminary .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)2MLJ275
..... my attention was drawn to the typed set of papers filed along with these writ petitions. ..... no scrap of paper was placed before this court to show that any notice has been given to the petitioners, enabling them to explain the allegation levelled against them. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1997Mad121
..... the hall's superintendent refused to return the answer paper and thereupon the petitioner is said tohave argued with the hall superintendent and that as secretary of the college students' union, he had some special privileges. ..... when the petitioner left the examination hall, the answer paper was collected by the hall superintendent. ..... on 15-9-1995 in the morning sessions, english-i paper was taken by the students and in the evening sessions english-ii paper was to be taken. ..... in the counter-affidavit filed by the principal of the college, it is stated that the petitioner was writing his answer paper in september, of the year. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ2
..... p-2 is written by using a carbon paper and the signature is alleged to have been affixed in pencil. .....
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!