Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.36 seconds)
A. Duraiswami vs A. Arumugham on 21 March, 1997 cites

R. Govindaswami Naidu vs G. Pushpalammal And Anr. on 26 July, 1951

In construing this provision as early as in Govindaswamy Naidu v. Pushpalammal , a Division Bench of this Court has pointed out that every act of waste by the tenant will not entitle the landlord to obtain an order of eviction under the provisions of Section 7 of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 15 of 1946. A finding whether the impugned construction must necessarily be deemed to be an act of waste which is likely to impairmaterially the value or utility of the building must be based upon the particular facts as emerged from the evidence that is adduced in the case. Where there was almost complete absence of material relevant to the determination of this main question, except the evidence of the landlady's husband who said that the act of the tenant would impair materially the value or utility of the building but did not choose to say how and why, held, it is difficult to hold that the demolition of the wall in that case has resulted in impairing the value of utility of the building.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Om Prakash vs Amar Singh & Anr on 9 January, 1987

In the light of these decisions, if we examine the present case we find that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have obviously failed to construe Section 13(2)(iii) in its proper perspective and they have failed to apply the correct legal tests for judging the nature of the constructions made by the appellant. As has been repeatedly pointed out in several decisions it is not every construction or alteration that would result in material impairment to the value or the utility of the building. In order to attract Section 13(2)(iii) the construction must not only be one affecting or diminishing the value or utility of the building but such impairment must be of a material nature, i.e., of a substantial and significant nature. It was pointed out in Om Prakash v. Amar Singh at 463, that the legislature had intended that only those constructions which brought about a substantial change in the front and structure of the building that would provide a ground for the tenant's eviction and hence it had taken care to use the word "materially altered the accommodation" and as such the construction of a chabutra, almirah, opening of window or closing a verandah by temporary structure or replacing of a leaking roof or placing partition in a room or making minor alterations for the convenient use of the accommodation would not materially alter the building. It would therefore follow that-when a construction is alleged to materially impair the value or utility of a building, the construction value or utility of a building, the construction should be of such a nature as to substantially diminish the value of the building either from the commercial or monetary point of view or from the utilitarian aspect of the building.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 81 - K N Singh - Full Document

G. Natarajan vs P. Thandavarayan on 31 December, 1968

In Natarajan v. Thandavarayan (1969) 2 M.L.J. 19 : 82 L.W. 208, Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as he then was) has held that while considering the content of Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act it is necessary that certain objective standards have to be set, before a tribunal or court engaged in the adjudication of rights of parties decisively concluded that the act complained of is or has to be characterised as one impairing materially the value or utility of the building. Here redering of subjective opinion may not be of any avail unless such opinion is backed by expert evidence. What is contemplated in the section is the lowering of the economic value of the building and not a possible mental inconvenience suffered subjectively by the landlord on a prima facie examination of the building. Unless there is clinching evidence to satisfy the conscience of the court that the acts complained of have caused damage to the building or its utility, it would be in the region of wild speculation to conclude that the necessary ingredients or the sine qua non of the section have been satisfied. His Lordship took the view that drilling a hole 3" in diameter in the terraced portion of a building (leased for running a hotel) to let out smoke, and removal of a portion of the parapet wall on the terrace were not acts of waste which in any wise could be said to impair materially the value or utility of the building.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 Next