Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)
Karur Ghee Stores Rep. By V. Periasamy vs N. Palaniappan And Another on 27 April, 2001 cites

A. Mohammed Jaffar Saheb vs A. Palaniappa Chettiar on 27 March, 1963

(8) A. Mohammed Jaffar Saheb v. A. Palaniappa Chettiar, 1964 (1) MLJ 112. This is a decision of a Division Bench of our Court where the landlord owned a building in Erode consisting of one block and there was sufficient door numbers which are portions of the said building. The controversy before the Court was whether eviction could be ordered on the ground of additional accommodation. The Division Bench held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Mahaboob Sir Prajuvanthu Sree Rajah ... vs Turlapati Subba Rao And Ors. on 24 September, 1926

Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahand Khan, ; (7) J. Jermons v. Allimal, 1997 (3) LW 235; (8) Hotel De-Broadway v. M/s Snow White Industrial Corporation, ; (9) A. Mohammed Jaffar Saheb v. A. Palaniappa Chettiar, 1964 (1) MLJ 112; (10) Shivaji Rao v. Bhajanga Rao, 1974 TLNJ 183; (11) P.K. Suraivele Mudaliar v. S.P. Mohana Sundraam, 2000 (1) LW 578 and (12) S. Mohammed Iqubal v. M. Padmanabhan, .
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988

In this case building bearing door No.18 and 18(c) both were owned by landlord. Door No.18 was in the occupation of ihe landlord and door No.l8(c) in the occupation of the tenant. Two buildings were divided by a common wall. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. Eviction was ordered on the ground that the report of the Advocate Commissioner appoint by the Rent Controller showed that there were two houses and the learned Judge held factually that the two door numbers are two different building, one was a terraced one and the other a tiled one and relying on the decision reported in Gangaram v. N. Shankar Reddy, dismissed the eviction petition. The learned Judge held that the fact that there was only a single wall between the two building did not make the entire building one, because the identity of the two building were different. Therefore, the learned Judge held Section 10(3)(c) will not apply unless the building that are in question are portions of one and the same building.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 35 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next