Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.04 seconds)
R. Radha vs C.R. Govindarajulu on 19 April, 1978 cites

Basheer Ahamed Khan And Anr. vs T.M. Krishna Chetty on 9 April, 1976

13. Second decision is that of Ramaprasada Rao J. (as he then was) in Basheer Ahmed Khan v. Krishna Chetti, 1976 (2) Mad LJ 321: (AIR 1977 Mad 35). In that case also, the revision petition had been preferred by the tenants. In the course of the hearing of the case, the landlord, respondent filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Act for Stopping all further proceedings since the petitioner-tenant had failed to pay the rent due. The tenants resisted that application contending that the landlord had already filed a suit for the recovery of the arrears of rent and therefore Section 11 could not be invoked and that the plea could be raised only before the Rent Controller or the appellate authority, and not in the High Court when it is exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. Dealing with the second contention, the learned Judge observed (at p. 56 of AIR):--
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Badrunnisa Begum vs H. Palani Ambalam And Anr. on 6 January, 1977

14. The third decision is that of Suryamurthy J. in Badrunnissa Begum v. Palani Ambalam, 90 Mad LW 287: (AIR 1977 NOC 297 (Mad)). That was also a case of a revision petition preferred by the landlady. In the civil revision petition an application under Section 11(4) was filed. The tenant contested the maintainability of that application. The learned Judge overruled the objection of the tenant and held that the application filed under Section 11(4) was maintainable. The learned Judge observed--.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1