Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Aziz Snack Bar vs Mr.Prashanth Kumar J.Jain on 7 March, 2012 cites

Kalyani Ragunath vs K.Muthuramalingam on 30 October, 2009

11. The tenant had preferred the present revision against the order, refusing to appoint a Commissioner to note down the vacancy of other tenements numbering 10 in the ground floor in order to prove that there was no bonafide requirements of the premises held by the tenants in his occupation. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, it is seen that the Appellate Authority had come to a conclusion that the appointment of Commissioner was not feasible in the appellate stage and for that, it had relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (4) TLNJ 430 (Kalyani Ragunath v. K.Muthuramalingam) passed by this Court in fair rent fixation case.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Pillaiyar vs Ganesan And Another on 10 November, 1999

14. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the tenant reported in 2000 (I) CTC 279 (Pillaiyar v. Ganesan and another) and (2002) 2 MLJ 133(Sarawathy v.Viswanathan) are in respect of the appointment of Commissioner during the pendency of the civil suit in a trial stage, wherein it was also found by this Court that the appointment of Commissioner would be helpful to come to a correct conclusion. As far as this case is concerned, even if the Commissioner goes to the petition premises and finds that all the 10 tenements were lying vacant and were in the possession of the landlord, the case of the landlord that he requires all the 10 tenements including the tenements in possession of the tenant herein for his own occupation to use them as godown would not be defeated. Therefore, such an appointment of Commissioner, even if permitted in the appellate stage, will not be helpful to the Court.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M/S. Sai Sri Saraswathy Construction vs Ariyakudi Kasi Viswanathan on 21 September, 2011

He would cite judgments of this Court reported in 2000(1) CTC 279 (Pillaiyar v. Ganesan) and 2002 (2)MLJ 133 (Saraswathy v. Viswanathan) in support of his arguments. He would therefore, request the Court to interfere the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and to direct the said forum to appoint a Commissioner as sought for by the petitioner/tenant for the said purpose. He would therefore request the Court to allow the revision accordingly.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 17 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document
1