Pamidi Vedavalli Thayarammal vs Junus Chettiar on 23 April, 1936
In Thayarammal v. Junus Ckettiar A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 844, Pandrang Rao, J., observed:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)Haridas Girdhardas & Ors vs Varadaraja Pillai & Anr on 18 August, 1971
R. Venkataswami Naidu And Another vs Narasram Naraindas on 27 April, 1965
(6) 1966 (1) MLJ 1 (SC) [R.Venkataswami Naidu and another v. Narasram Naraindas alias Purushottamdas]
If it can be so enforced, S. 3 which gives the tenant a right to compensation for the building cannot be applicable to a case where there was such a covenant for the Act could not at the same time have countenanced a compulsory demolition of a building at the instance of the lessor and a right in the tenant to compensation for that building. The enforceability of the covenant, therefore, indicated the scope of s. 3 in spite of its wide terms and the equally wide definition of the word "tenant" in the Act. That scope was that the section had no application here there was such a covenant. Learned counsel for the lessor advanced the same reasoning summarising the position by the observation that the erection contemplated by s. 3 was a lawful erection, that is, not in breach of any covenant not to build.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. C. Ranganthan vs S.A. Chinnadurai Nadar on 29 August, 1986
3. ............................. The purpose to which the plaintiff may put the property is an extraneous factor. Then he would switch over to Ranganthan v. Chinnadurai Nadar, and relied upon it extensively.
R. Sundara Naicker vs S. Chinnamal And Ors. on 9 February, 2004
In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment reported in 2004 (1) CTC 781 [R.Sundara Naicker v. S.Chinnamal and others] wherein it has been held as follows -
A. Ponnambala Achary vs K. Mani on 13 May, 1958
(3) 1958 (11) MLJ 516 [A.Ponnambala Achary
v. K.Mani]
Section 12 of the Act will have to be read consistent with the object and provisions of the enactment. The provisions of Section 12 only refer to the erection of building that is with respect to its type, nature, size, etc., and not to any other stipulation like its demolition and delivery of vacant possession. The provisions of Section 9of the Act are not subject to any contract between the parties. Section 12 cannot be read so as to enable the parties to contract out of the statute.
1