Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
G.Subburaj vs B.V.Vidyasekar on 7 July, 2010 cites

A. Duraiswami vs A. Arumugham on 21 March, 1997

Further, in the judgment reported in 1997(2) MLJ 401, in the case of A.Duraiswami vs. A.Arumugham, the alleged act of waste was that the tenant has damaged the door in front of the shop and replaced the same with a new door frame without the consent of the landlord and that act was not considered as act of waste by the learned Judge. But in this case, the act complained is very serious and the tenant has changed the Madras terrace portion which is very firm and stable and replaced the same with tin sheet roof and which definitely would affect the utility as well as caused damages to the building.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Babu Manmohan Das Shah & Ors vs Bishun Das on 12 October, 1966

12.In support of his contention, Mr.J.Barathan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords relied upon the judgment reported in 1971(2) MLJ 224, in the case of Sha Jetmull Genmull vs. Gocooldass Jamunadas & Co., represented by its Parter Govindass Purushothamdas, in AIR 1967 SC 643, in the case of Manmohan Das Shan and others vs. Bishun Dass & 1982 (1) MLJ 376, in the case of Krishna Rao M.Nikan and Krishna Rao M Nikan vs. Sha Nirbhayala Bahaduramal and others.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 71 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Vipin Kumar vs Roshan Lal Anand And Ors on 24 March, 1993

21.Further in the judgment reported in 1993(2)SCC 614, in the case of Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand, it was held that the Court can infer from the proved facts that the construction, repairs effected by the tenant without the consent of the landlord whether those acts amount to act of waste and by reason of those acts, the value and utility of the building will be materially affected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 76 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Sha Nirbhayala Bahadurmal vs Krishna Rao M. Nikan on 5 January, 1982

22.Further, in the judgment reported in 1982(1) MLJ 376, in the case of S.N.Bahadurmal vs. Krishna Rao M.Nikan has held that "the learned counsel for the tenant argued that these alternations or constructions have not impaired the value or the utility of the building and therefore, cannot constitute waste. I am unable to differ from the conclusions of the lower Courts on this aspect. It is not open to a tenant to reconstruct or remodel the building leased out to him without the written consent of the landlord and it is not as if that these admitted acts done by the tenant are mere minor alternation or repair works. They are in the nature or re-modelling and reconstruction to suit the personal requirement of the tenant, who had converted a stainless steel shop into a textile show-room. He should not have ventured on reconstructions and alterations without the approval of the landlord. Changing the nature of the demised premises tantamounts to technical waste and the demolition or removal of the doors and shutters, pillars, etc., are undoubtedly wilful and reckless on the part of the tenant. It is not as if the removal of these portions was caused in the course of reasonable use and it is certainly prejudicial to the interests of the landlord, in that the tenant has made indiscriminate alternations and additions. In my opinion, this also amounts to doing of an act which affects the utility of building, though the tenant might have added to the value of the building by putting up a better appearance. In this view of the matter, the findings of the Courts below that the tenant should be held to have committed acts of waste' coming under the definition have to be upheld."
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sha Jetmull Genmull vs Gocooldass Jamunadass And Co. ... on 30 November, 1970

12.In support of his contention, Mr.J.Barathan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords relied upon the judgment reported in 1971(2) MLJ 224, in the case of Sha Jetmull Genmull vs. Gocooldass Jamunadas & Co., represented by its Parter Govindass Purushothamdas, in AIR 1967 SC 643, in the case of Manmohan Das Shan and others vs. Bishun Dass & 1982 (1) MLJ 376, in the case of Krishna Rao M.Nikan and Krishna Rao M Nikan vs. Sha Nirbhayala Bahaduramal and others.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1