Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing T. Dakshinamoorthy vs Thulja Bai And Anr. on 9 November, 1951

The Manager, Deluxe Roadlines And Anr. vs Jainullabudeen on 25 April, 1997

In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and also by this Court, referred to supra, I do not think any reliance could be placed on the Full Bench decision reported in T. Dakshinamoorthy v. Thulja Bai and Anr. . Moreover, on going thr6ugh that decision, I further find that their Lordships did not rule out that the nature of structure is irrelevant. Their Lordships of the Full Bench have also held that the nature of construction is also a relevant factor for consideration, though the user was given predominance. To that extent, the decision of the Supreme Court is otherwise. In that view, it has to be held that the decision of the Full Bench to that extent is not good law.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Thomas George Kuriyan vs S.A. Kharche, Proprietor, S.A. Kharche ... on 1 July, 1993

In the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dakshinamoorthy v. Thuluja Bai (1952) 1 M.L.J. 390 (F.B.), it has been held that where a court finds the letting to be equally for residential and nonresidential purposes and for mainly or substantially have been used for either kind of purpose, the application filed by the landlord may well stand whether under Section 7(3)(a)(i) or (ii) under the old Act. It is therefore clear that the landlord is legally entitled to claim eviction of the premises in question which has been let but partly for residence and partly for nonresidential purposes.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bashruddin vs P. Somasundaram on 17 December, 1999

While dealing with the question relating to whether the structure or the user was the decisive test, the learned Judge observed that the Full Bench decision reported in T.Dakshinamoorthy v. Thulja Bai and another, cannot be good law any longer. However, the learned Judge observed that the Full Bench did not rule that the nature of the structure was irrelevant. What they had held was that it was also relevant factor for consideration, though the user was given predominance. Only to that extent the decision of the Full Bench in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in P.Kesavan (dead) Through Lrs. v. Ammukutty Amma and others, cannot be said to be good law.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Evaristo Estenaslaoc Rodrigues And ... vs Vaman Anant Parab Mahambrey And Ors. on 18 October, 1985

11. The learned Counsel also sough support for his view in the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Dakshinamoorthy's case (Supra). The Full Bench has, in fact, held in the said case that for the purpose of determining whether a building is residential or non-residential, one has to bear in mind a few salient considerations, such as (1) where there is an instrument of tenancy specifically and explicitly declaring the purpose of the letting as residential, or non-residential no difficulty generally arises; (2) where there is no such instrument of tenancy, the question will have to be considered on the basis of direct evidence aliunde (sic) concerning the purpose of the letting, which may be adduced in a case (3) if no such evidence too is forth coming, the Court can only look at the evidence concerning the user of the premises by the tenant down acquired in by the landlord, (4) where there is evidence of such user, but there is no evidence of such acquiescence, the structural design, the antecedent user of the building by the landlord as known to the tenant and other surrounding circumstances, if any, will also have to enter into the determination of the question whether the building is or is not residential; and (5) difficulty may sometimes still remain, i.e. after applying the test above indicated, if the buildings is found let for both kinds of purposes, residential and non-residential, no distinction being made between one part as let for one purpose and the other for other purpose. In such a case, what has to be determined as a question of fact is what was the real, main and substantial purpose of the letting. These observations of the Madras High Court, however, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Kakodkar, instead of supporting the case of the petitioners run counter. First of all, it may be pointed out that it is common ground that the petitioners themselves let out to the first respondent the portion occupied by him for commercial purposes. Therefore, not only the purpose of letting was specifically stated to be non-commercial in the agreement of lease but also the occupation for such purpose had been acquiesced by the petitioners in the circumstances, applying the observations made by the Madras High Court, I have to hold that it is the purpose for which the building was let out as per the agreement that will define its nature. I may also mention that the Madras High Court, while reaching the aforesaid conclusions, had observed that what is at the inception a residential letting, and any conversion, after the letting, of a residential building into a non-residential may well take place within and only within the limits which the statue prescribes, and further that to hold that, if prior to a letting a building happens to have been of one character it must for ever keep that character irrespective of what the effect of the letting or of the acts of parties subsequent to the letting may be a difficult, if not possible, position. It is thus clear that the view taken by the Madras High Court is that the purpose of letting is the test that governs the classification of a building as residential or non-residential, a view that is obviously adverse to the petitioner's case.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bhavani Madhurakavi vs V. Chandrasekaran And Anr. on 24 April, 1997

The counsel farther submitted that this Full Bench decision was never taken note of by in any of the decision either by this Court or by Supreme Court and so far as this Court is concerned, this decision still holds good. On the basis of the said decision, the counsel further submitted that if the building was constructed as a residential building and the letting was for non-residential purpose or if the building was used for years together by the tenant for non-residential purpose, the statutory bar will apply and the building can, thereafter, be considered only as a non-residential building.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.N. Lakshmanan vs S.P. Hajee Alavudeen Saheb Sons on 9 February, 1979

P.W. 2 also says that from the date of letting out of the premises, he does not know whether a business was conducted in the petition-mentioned premises. As against this, we have the assertion of R.W. 1 that the petitioner rented out the premises only for non-residential purposes, that he is doing business ever since he became a tenant, that there are no residential houses in the street in which the petition-mentioned premises is situate, that there is no well, kitchen or bath-room in the petition-mentioned premises and that the assertion that the petitioner is in requirement of the premises for his residence is not true. Having these facts in mind, we have to come to the conclusion whether the premises is a residential building or a non-residential building. This Court in a decision reported in Dakshinamoorthy v. Thulja Bai , observed thus:
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

B. Mohan Lal Sowcar vs Hameedia Hardware Store Represented By ... on 25 January, 1988

6. It was also observed in that case that It is true that the test of dominant purpose and principal user is act always easy of application. Applied certainly it can be, speaking generally, though with some difficulty in some cases. Such difficulty in the actual application of the test in such cases will only mean that a margin of judicial discretion in the matter of the determination of the question of the character of the building as question of fact has necessarily to be allowed for. Instances of transactions inspired by mixed motives and intents in which the question of the main, real and dominant motive and intent has to be canvassed for validating or invalidating them are not uncommon in other branches of law. There can in our judgment be no reason of principle why a canvass of the main, real and dominant purpose should be regarded as not legitimate in this branch of law in cases where the letting is actuated by mixed purposes.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Precision Steel & Engg. Works & Anr vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal on 9 December, 2002

Incidentally, we may refer to a Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in T. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. Thulja Bai & Anr. AIR 1952 Madras 413. The Full Bench held the English test being applicable in India too, as sound and reasonable, and approved the test of dominant purpose and principal user being applied for determining the purpose of letting though the Bench observed that such test was not always of easy application and the difficulty in the actual application of the test was capable of being taken care of by a margin of judicial discretion in the matter of the determination of the question of the character of the building as a question of fact has necessarily to be allowed for. To quote, the Full Bench held, "Instances of transactions inspired by mixed motives and intents in which the question of the main, real and dominant motive and intent has to be canvassed for validating or invalidating them are not uncommon in other branches of law. There can in our judgment be no reason or principle why a canvass of the main, real and dominant purpose should be regarded as not legitimate in this branch of law in cases where the letting is actuated by mixed purposes."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 17 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

The Associated Journals Ltd And Anr. vs Land And Development Office on 21 December, 2018

11. With much vehemence, it was submitted by learned Solicitor General of India that petitioners had ceased to use the 'subject premises' for the predominant purpose of printing newspapers, as was originally envisaged, and the breaches pointed out have not been rectified by petitioners despite multiple Notices given to petitioners. Reliance was placed upon decisions in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Private Limited and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 469; Allenbury Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramkrishna Dalmia and Others, (1973) 1 SCC 7; Boddu Narayanamma v. Venkatarama Aluminium Co. And W.P.(C) 12133/2018 Page 10 of 17 Others, (1999) 7 SCC 589; Precision Steel & Engg. Works and Another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, (2003) 2 SCC 236; Waller and Son, Limited v. Thomas, 1 K.B. King's Bench Division 541; Feyereisel v. Turnidge, 2 Q.B. Queen's Bench Division 29 and upon Full Bench decision in T. Dakshinamoorthy v. Thulja Bai and Another, 65 L.W. 242 to submit that 'piercing of corporate veil' is essential to ascertain the actual intention of the parties and in the instant case, surreptitious transfer of a lucrative interest in the 'subject premises' by petitioners to another entity-Young Indian and use of 'subject premises' for earning huge rental income, justifies respondent's re-entry in the 'subject premises'.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Gaur - Full Document
1   2 3 Next