Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 148 (3.59 seconds)
Documents citing Raval & Co vs K. C. Ramachandran & Ors on 11 December, 1973

M/S.Primex Healthcare And Research ... vs Mr.A.A.L.Ramaswamy on 29 September, 2022

"The provisions of the Act under consideration show that they are to take effect notwithstanding any contract even during the subsistence of the contract. We have already referred to the definition of the terms 'landlord' and 'tenant' which applies both to subsisting tenancies as well as tenancies which might have come to an end. We may also refer to the provisions in S. 7(2) which lays down that where the fair rent of a building has not been fixed the landlord shall not claim anything in addition to the agreed rent, thus showing that the fair rent can be fixed even where there is an 34/60 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 agreed rent. That is why we have earlier pointed out that the various English decisions which provide for fixation of rent only where the contractual tenancy has come to an end do not apply here. We may also refer to sub-Section (3) of S. 10 which deals with cases where landlord required a residential or non residential building for his own use. Clause (d) of that sub-Section provides that where the tenancy is for a term the landlord cannot get possession before the expiry of the term, thus showing that in other cases of eviction covered by S. 10 eviction is permissible even during the continuance of the contractual tenancy if the conditions laid down in S. 10 are satisfied."
Madras High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 2 - R N Manjula - Full Document

Lelitha vs Ayissumma on 6 April, 1977

In Raval and Co. v. K.G. Ramachan-dran, AIR 1974 SC 818 a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges of the Supreme Court explained the prior decisions in AIR 1967 SC 1419, AIR 1965 SC 101 and AIR 1963 SC 120. The earlier cases, it was said related to eviction by regular suit and not to summary proceedings under the Rent Control Statutes. The general observations in AIR 1967 SC 1419 were to be confined to the facts of the case.
Kerala High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Team Consultants Private Limited vs Swapna Lahiri And Ors. on 1 March, 2006

31. We are of the view that the aforesaid conclusion was arrived at by the Apex Court on the basis of the concession of the Counsel of the parties that the consistent view prevailing in the Madras High Court was that in a case the tenant agrees to pay the tax to the landlord, the same is treated to be part of rent. At any rate, the said decision cannot have any application to a case of variable amount of proportionate municipal tax and commercial surcharge payable to the municipality in lieu of the service rendered not by the landlord. but by the municipality and in this case the landlord has specifically mentioned the amount of Rs. 2,000/- as rent. We, therefore, hold that in the fact of this case the rent should be held to be Rs. 2,000/- a month and although the tenant is under the statutory obligation to pay the occupier's share and the commercial surcharge, the same being payable to the Corporation in lieu of the service rendered to the occupiers is not a part of rent and thus, the Court could not hold the appellant defaulter in payment of rent for non-payment of the Corporation tax and commercial surcharge.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Sharad Dadu S/O Shyamlal Dadu vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 30 May, 1990

While accepting the said view, we rely on the salutary principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Raval and Co. v. K.G. Ramachandran, AIR 1974 SC 818 to the effect that any general observation made by the Supreme Court cannot apply in interpreting the provisions of an Act unless the Court has applied its mind to and analysed the provisions of that particular Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Navalmal S/O Pinjamal vs Laxmansingh S/O Panchamsingh And Anr. on 7 March, 1991

8.4. The popular, apt and sarcastic saying - "fools build houses for wise men to live in" was judicially noticed by Majority in Raval and Co. v. K. G. Ramchandran and Ors., AIR 1974 SC 818, and quoted in para 21 by their Lordships in Prabhakaran Nair's case (supra). Their Lordships hearing kept in view the necessity of encouraging building and rebuilding activities while interpreting the Rent Control legislation vide para 36, observed : -
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Kaloot Sao And Anr. vs Mostt. (Name Not Known) W/O. Munni Sao ... on 25 August, 1976

8. Mr. Chatterjee said that in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in Raval & Co. v. K. G. Ramachandram, (AIR 1974 SC 818), Isha Valimohammed v. Haji Gulam Mohammad and Haji Dada Trust, (AIR 1974 SC 2061), P. J. Gupta v. K. Venkatesan, (AIR 1974 SC 2331) and Puwada Venkateswara Rao v. Chidamana Venkata Ramana (AIR 1976 SC 869) it must now be held that the case Niranjan Pal v. Chaitanyalal Ghosh (AIR 1964 Pat 401) (FB) was incorrectly decided.
Patna High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - L M Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next