Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)
M/S.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs M/S.Gem Paper Company on 1 November, 2010 cites

S.A. Ramachandran vs S. Neelavathy on 20 December, 1996

The observations extracted above clearly bring out the importance of the requirement as to possession of the property by the tenant before he can proceed to claim benefits under section 9 of the Act. To recognise a claim to the benefits of section 9 of the Act by heirs of tenants as defined under section 2(4)(i) and 2(4)(ii)(a)(b) under section 2(4)(c)of the Act who are not at all in possession, would be to violate the very definition of the word 'tenant' and also totally defeat the very object with which the provisions of the Act had been enacted. Therefore, the decision referred to above would govern this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 15 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Mohd. Laiquiddin & Anr vs Kamala Devi Misra (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 5 January, 2010

In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY ..vs.. EMPIRE ESTATE, BOMBAY((1996)2 SCC 345), PEERAN SAHIB ..vs.. PEDDA JAMALUDDIN SAHIB (AIR 1958 AP 48) and MOHD.LAIQUIDDIN ..vs.. KAMALA DEVI MISRA ((2010)2 MLJ 820 (SC). Therefore, on this short ground, the appeal has to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the courts below.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 36 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

M. Raja vs Manakchand Jamath (Deceased) on 22 March, 2006

25. With regard to the next fold of submission that the suit is bad for non-issuance of a notice under section 11 of the City Tenants' Protection Act, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant is entitled to get the protection under the provisions of the City Tenants' Protection Act, the respondent ought to have issued a notice under section 11 before instituting the suit, requesting the appellant to surrender the vacant possession by offering to pay the compensation for the superstructure erected by them, whereas, it is the defence taken by the respondents that since the appellant Corporation is not in actual physical possession, the appellant is not entitled to get the benefits under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act and under such circumstances, there is no need to issue a notice under section 11. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the question that arises for consideration in this regard is, whether the appellant is entitled to the protection under the City Tenants' Protection Act. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer to the various decisions relied on by either side. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following observation, reported in 1966(1) M.L.J.206 (supra) to substantiate his contention.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

Sundara Rajan And Anr. vs Sundaramoorthy on 11 January, 1993

In 1992-1-L.W.560 (Sundara Rajan and another v. Sundaramoorthy), the learned Judge who decided the Civil Revision Petition also held that the plea that the suit is not maintainable due to lack of notice under Section 11 could be waived by the tenant. In that case, the defendant filed written statement in which he did not take such a contention. But subsequently when he filed an additional written statement, such plea was taken and the learned Judge said that it will amount to waiver.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next