Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)
Documents citing Mullaikodiammal vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 23 June, 1971

R.T. Thathachari And Anr. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 28 September, 1995

'As the law was clear that it was the landlord or landlady who had the voice and the choice to make in the matter of choosing one of his or her many houses, the Government had no part to play in that field of activity which was exclusively that of the landlord. Again, in Dr. K. Ramanujam v. Accommodation Controller, Madras (88 L.W., 618), Ramanujam J has taken a similar view after referring with approval to another judgment of Ramaprasada Rao J., in Mullalkodiammal v. Government of Tamil Nadu .
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. K. Ramanujam vs The Accommodation Controller And Anr. on 4 March, 1975

4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the two reasons set out in the impugned order for rejecting the petitioner's request for release of the building; are not tenable in law, and, therefore, the impugned order should be quashed. He contends that the basis on which the impugned order proceeds is that the petitioner's son and daughter alone are living in the back portion and that the accommodation therein is quite sufficient for them. It is pointed out that basis is erroneous. It is said that the limited, accommodation in the back portion is not sufficient for the petitioner's son and his daughter, who is living with her husband,, mother-in-law, and her children, and that, therefore, the reasoning giver in the impugned order that the accommodation in the back portion is sufficient for the petitioner's son and daughter is vitiated. It is also pointed out that the other reason given in the impugned order that if the petitioner wants, he could evict the tenant in another house to accommodate the petitioner's son and daughter is equally untenable, for it is not for the respondents to say in which house the petitioner or his son and daughter-should live. The learned Counsel in this connection, refers to the decision of Ramaprasada Rao, J., in Mullaikcdiammal v. Government of Tamil Nadu . In that case, the Government proceeded on the basis of the report of the Accommodation Controller that the accommodation available for the landlady in that case was sufficient and that she may not require additional accommodation. Dealing with the question as to whether the Government could judge as to what accommodation is sufficient for the landlady, the Court expressed the view that it is for the landlord to judge for himself as to what portion is suitable for his residence and for the residence of the members of his family and that it is not for the department or any one to dictate, and that the requirement of the landlord or landlord has to be judged from their standpoint and it is not for the Accommodation Controller to say as it what is the accommodation required for the family of the landlord or the landlady.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1