Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 51 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing C.Chandramohan vs Sengottaiyan (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 4 January, 2000

J.R.Chandran vs P.Kubendra Singh on 10 November, 2022

But the Rent Controller confronted a claim of Rs.1,200/- as the rate of rent from the landlord, he chose to reject the plea of both on the ground that neither of them had proved the rent that was payable. And, from the tenant's stand point he lost his R.C.O.P. 1204 of 1998. The tenant was instantly caught in a quandary and his predicament is understandable. Obviously, if he has stuck to his predicament and strategized his defence in projecting it in the ongoing round of litigation, the ratio in C.Chandramohan Vs Sengottaytaiyan [(2000) 1 SCC 451] would have come in handy for him, for nowhere the landlord has pleaded the rate of rent, the duration of default and the total arrears of rent due from the tenant. He also chose not to issue any statutory notice to aid him with a presumption of 21/37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD) No.838 of 2021 and C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3313 & 3514 of 2019 wilfulness of the default. This, if the tenant had resorted to, it might have created a strong probability that his current default in paying the rent might not be wilful, since his conduct may not be construed as a conscious or a deliberate defiance along with an intention not to pay the rent as has been held in the endless list of authorities on the point.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

J.R.Chandran vs P.Kubendra Singh on 10 November, 2022

But the Rent Controller confronted a claim of Rs.1,200/- as the rate of rent from the landlord, and he chose to reject the plea of both on the ground neither of them had proved the rent that was payable. And, from the tenant's stand point he lost his R.C.O.P 1204 of 1998. The tenant was instantly caught in a quandary and his predicament is understandable. Obviously, if he has stuck to his predicament and strategized his defence in projecting it in the ongoing round of litigation, the ratio in C.Chandramohan Vs Sengottaytaiyan [(2000) 1 SCC 451] would have come in handy for him, for nowhere the landlord has pleaded the rate of rent, the duration of default and the total arrears of rent due from the tenant. He also chose not to issue any statutory notice to aid him with a presumption of wilfulness of the default. This, if the tenant had resorted to, it might have created a strong probability that his current default in paying the rent might not be wilful, since his conduct may not be construed as a conscious or a deliberate defiance along with an intention not to pay the rent 21/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD) No.838 of 2021 and C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3313 & 3514 of 2019 as has been held in the endless list of authorities on the point.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

J.R.Chandran vs P.Kubendra Singh on 10 November, 2022

But the Rent Controller confronted a claim of Rs.1,200/- as the rate of rent from the landlord, he chose to reject the plea of both on the ground that neither of them had proved the rent that was payable. And, from the tenant's stand point he lost his R.C.O.P.1204 of 1998. The tenant was instantly caught in a quandary and his predicament is understandable. Obviously, if he has stuck to his predicament and strategized his defence in projecting it in the ongoing round of litigation, the ratio in C.Chandramohan Vs Sengottaytaiyan [(2000) 1 SCC 451] would have come in handy for him, for nowhere the landlord has pleaded the rate of rent, the duration of default and the total arrears of rent due from the tenant. He also chose not to 20/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD) No.838 of 2021 and C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3313 & 3514 of 2019 issue any statutory notice to aid him with a presumption of wilfulness of the default. This, if the tenant had resorted to, it might have created a strong probability that his current default in paying the rent might not be wilful, since his conduct may not be construed as a conscious or a deliberate defiance along with an intention not to pay the rent as has been held in the endless list of authorities on the point.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

G.M. Kandasamy And Two Ors. vs Palaniammal (Deceased) And Ors. on 13 February, 2004

20. Then the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision in C. Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan, AIR 2000 S.C. 568. The said decision also arises out of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960). Even under the said Act, the Apex Court has come to the conclusion that the denial of the title of the landlord by the tenant is not wilful because such denial was due to lack of knowledge of release deed in favour of the present landlord. In the present case, that is not the fact. In spite of specific pleading by the respondents claiming right under the settlement deed and the Will and in spite of the specific findings given by the learned Judge holding that the settlement deed and the Will, Grounds have been taken in the L.P.As. filed before this Court, denying the title of the landlords saying that the settlement deed and the Will are not valid documents.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J.R.Chandran vs P.Kubendra Singh on 10 November, 2022

But the Rent Controller confronted a claim of Rs.1,200/- as the rate of rent from the landlord, and he chose to reject the plea of both on the ground neither of them had proved the rent that was payable. And, from the tenant's stand point he lost his R.C.O.P 1204 of 1998. The tenant was instantly caught in a quandary and his predicament is understandable. Obviously, if he has stuck to his predicament and strategized his defence in projecting it in the ongoing round of litigation, the ratio in C.Chandramohan Vs Sengottaytaiyan [(2000) 1 SCC 451] would have come in handy for him, for nowhere the landlord has pleaded the rate of rent, the duration of default and the total arrears of rent due from the tenant. He also chose not to issue any statutory notice to aid him with a presumption of wilfulness of the default. This, if the tenant had resorted to, it might have created a strong probability that his current default in paying the rent might not be wilful, since his conduct may not be construed as a conscious or a deliberate defiance along with an intention not to pay the rent 21/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD) No.838 of 2021 and C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3313 & 3514 of 2019 as has been held in the endless list of authorities on the point.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

J.R.Chandran vs P.Kubendra Singh on 10 November, 2022

But the Rent Controller confronted a claim of Rs.1,200/- as the rate of rent from the landlord, and he chose to reject the plea of both on the ground that neither of them had proved the rent that was payable. And, from the tenant's stand point he lost his R.C.O.P. 1204 of 1998. The tenant was instantly caught in a quandary and his predicament is understandable. Obviously, if he has stuck to his predicament and strategized his defence in projecting it in the ongoing round of litigation, the ratio in C.Chandramohan Vs Sengottaytaiyan [(2000) 1 21/37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD) No.838 of 2021 and C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3313 & 3514 of 2019 SCC 451] would have come in handy for him, for nowhere the landlord has pleaded the rate of rent, the duration of default and the total arrears of rent due from the tenant. He also chose not to issue any statutory notice to aid him with a presumption of wilfulness of the default. This, if the tenant had resorted to, it might have created a strong probability that his current default in paying the rent might not be wilful, since his conduct may not be construed as a conscious or a deliberate defiance along with an intention not to pay the rent as has been held in the endless list of authorities on the point.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

A.Ranganathan vs T.D.Sarasabooshani Ammal on 23 February, 2023

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgement reported in (2000) 1 SCC 451 in the case of C.Chandramohan Vs. Sengottaiyan (dead) by LRs and others, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the application under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, when the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default filed, already the tenant filed a petition for depositing the rent. Therefore, no cause of action arose for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 C.R.P.Nos. 3662 & 3663 of 2018 filing the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. No wilful default was committed by the tenant in payment of monthly rent for the petition premises.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Hatim And Co., Represented By Its ... vs Radhakrishnan And Ors. on 17 November, 2000

12. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in C. Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan (2000)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 1 : (2000)1 C.T.C. 239 and contended that the landlady has not right to maintain the rent control petitions, since specific period of default was not mentioned in the petitions filed against these revision petitioners. The Apex Court has held that if the eviction petition is not containing averments with regard to specific period during which the tenant committed default in payment of rent, eviction cannot be ordered relying on the averments in the notices exchanged between the parties, prior to the filing of the petition. This decision will have no application, since it has been specifically stated in the pleadings in the petitions that the revision petitioners are in arrears for the period from October, 1986 to upto date, after taking into consideration the deposit made by both the revision petitioners in the petition filed under Section 11(4) of the Act in the earlier proceedings in R.C.O.P.Nos. l562 of 1985 and 1732 of 1985, even though there was default in payment of rent for the period from April, 1985 to February 1989, before making the abovesaid payments.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next