Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)Section 9 in The Burmah Shell (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Burmah Shell (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Sri Agatheeswarar Prasanna Venkatesa ... vs M. Narasimhan on 27 January, 1982
9.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel, inter-alia, would submit that it was a suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants; that the application filed by the first defendant under Section 9 of the Act, claiming right to purchase the land was denied by all the courts and that it has reached finality also; that the trial court has marshalled the evidence and has decreed the suit, but the first appellate court has denied the relief only on technical ground that in the instant case, there was no notice issued under Section 11 of the City Tenants Protection Act as contemplated under the City Tenants Protection Act, granting three months time; that in the instant case, that right has been waived by the defendants, in particular by the first defendant by filing application under Section 9 of the Act and there was a writ petition pending between the parties, in which also it was understood that there was an extension for a period of 10 years, which came to an end in the year 1989 and thereafter, either the first defendant or the second defendant could not be allowed to continue to be in possession; that this plea that they are entitled to protection under the provisions of City Tenants Protection Act was never raised in the writ petition and apart from that, the first appellate court relied on a decision of this Court reported in 95 LAW WEEKLY 412 (SRI AGASTHEESWARAR PRASANNA VENKATESA PERUMAL DEVASTANAM BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, P. VALIAMMAL VS. NARASIMHAN), wherein it has been held that the suit was not maintainable, since Section 11 notice, as contemplated, was not issued and without issuing such notice, the suit for ejectment should not be filed; that further, it was found that the decision, as referred to above, squarely applies to the present facts of this case and following the same, there is no option for the court to dismiss the suit. But, in the instant case, they have not raised such a plea in the writ petition either, or pending proceedings; that they have filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, but failed therein; and that no question of non issuance of notice under Section 11 of the Act would arise.
Section 7 in The Burmah Shell (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Burmah Shell (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
P.R.Aithala Alias vs Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation on 9 October, 2006
A reading of the above would clearly reveal that as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, in order to claim the benefit under the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act, one should be in continuous and actual physical possession of such land and building. In the instant case, it is not the case of the first defendant that he is in actual physical possession of the land. Admittedly, the second defendant, who is the retail dealer, has been in actual possession all along. There is distinction between the actual physical possession and legal possession. In the instant case, it is true, the first defendant is in legal possession, but he is not in actual physical possession of the land, but it is only the second defendant. It was not the second defendant, who claims the benefit under Section 9 of the Act, but it was the first defendant, who claims the benefit and the same was denied and it has reached finality by the order of this Court in CRP. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has relied on the decisions of this Court reported in MANU/TN/2672/2006 VOLUME 7, PART 26 (P.R.AITHALA ALIAS P.RAMAKRISHNA AITHALA VS. HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MADRAS) and 2007 (1) CTC 67 (MALINI PARTHASARATHY VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.). The Court is of the considered opinion that these decisions have got an application to the present facts of this case.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Burmah Shell (Acquisition Of Undertakings In India) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
1