Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
C.Sekar vs T.Narayanan (Deceased) on 3 January, 2018 cites

Mrs.Sulochana vs Smt.R.Pangajam on 27 September, 2012

28. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the tenants have committed wilful default. The finding of the learned Rent Controller that after five years of entertaining bonafide dispute about the ownership and failure to ascertain real owner, it is clear that the intention of the tenants is not to pay the rent only, is valid and based on proper appreciation of facts. The decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the tenants do not advance the case of the tenants. The decision reported in 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 245 (Sulochana v. R.Pangajam and others) relied on by the learned counsel for the landlords is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. For the above reason, point No.2 is answered against the tenants.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - R S Ramanathan - Full Document

Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal N.Sangam ... vs Govt. Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 December, 2015

In the absence of any Authority prescribed by the first respondent with regard to deposit of rents as per section 9(3) of the Act and in the light of the earlier decision of this Court referred to above. I am constrained to accept the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to prescribe the Authority to whom the deposit of rents has to be made under section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, expeditiously. Inasmuch as absence of such Authority is a lacuna, this Court hopes that the Government will come forward with necessary notification as early as possible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 40 - R Gogoi - Full Document
1