Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing P.R.Aithala Alias vs Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation on 9 October, 2006

R.Chandramouleeswaran vs P.Vasudevan ..R1 In Sa.904/1996 & R2 In ... on 6 February, 2007

A reading of the above would clearly reveal that as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, in order to claim the benefit under the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act, one should be in continuous and actual physical possession of such land and building. In the instant case, it is not the case of the first defendant that he is in actual physical possession of the land. Admittedly, the second defendant, who is the retail dealer, has been in actual possession all along. There is distinction between the actual physical possession and legal possession. In the instant case, it is true, the first defendant is in legal possession, but he is not in actual physical possession of the land, but it is only the second defendant. It was not the second defendant, who claims the benefit under Section 9 of the Act, but it was the first defendant, who claims the benefit and the same was denied and it has reached finality by the order of this Court in CRP. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the decisions of this Court reported in MANU/TN/2672/2006 VOLUME 7, PART 26 (P.R.AITHALA ALIAS P.RAMAKRISHNA AITHALA VS. HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MADRAS) and 2007 (1) CTC 67 (MALINI PARTHASARATHY VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.). The Court is of the considered opinion that these decisions have got an application to the present facts of this case.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - M Chockalingam - Full Document
1