Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)
R.R. Dinakaran vs S.L. Chinnakuppuswami on 25 February, 1986 cites

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

In G. Natarajan v. P. Thandavarayan (1969) 2 M.L.J. 19 : 82 L.W. 208. Ramaprasada Rao, J., as he then was, has held that what is contemplated in the section Section 10(2)(iii) 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. It is further stated that unless there is clinching evidence to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the acts complained of have caused damages 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. It is worthwhile pointing out that the acts complained pf in that case were (1) drilling of a hole 3" in diameter in the terrace portion of the main building (leased for running a hotel) to let out smoke; and (2) removal of a portion of the parapet wall on the terrace of the building, to a length 2' x 3' or 31/2' to enable the employees housed in the adjacent building to have ingress and egress to the hotel premises.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

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

11. The learned Advocate-General then stated that by the execution of the unauthorised works, the petitioner has remodelled and reconstructed the building to suit his personal requirements and such conversion would certainly attract the mischief of Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act/In support of this argument, the learned Advocate-General cited the decision in Sha Nirbhayalal Bahadurmal v. Krishna Rao M. Nikan. (1982) 95 L.W. 792.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

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

12. Another decision in Sha Jetmull Genmull v. Gocooldass and Co., represented by its Partner Govindass Purushothamdas (1971) 2 M.L.J. 224 was also cited to contend that the works carried out by a tenant may increase materially the value but affect the utilitarian value or vice versa and that in either case it is not open to a tenant to contend that since the material or utilitarian value has been increased the application of Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act is not called for. Here again it has to be mentioned that there is no evidence, much less evidence worthy of acceptance to show that by increasing the material value of the building, the utilitarian value has gone down or vice versa.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Mesdames Tara Moolgaukar And Ors. vs T. Raja Mohan Rao on 15 February, 1979

In yet another decision rendered by Ramaprasada Rao CJ., in Mesdames Tara Moolgaukar and Ors. v. T. Raj Mohan Rao ,it has; been held that since Section 10(2)(iii) is a very stringent provision, it becomes all the more necessary for Courts to administer it cautiously and accept the request of the landlord for eviction only under stated circumstances which satisfy every limb of the Sub-section. In that case it was held that by using the garage as a room, it could not be said that the tenant had committed acts of waste.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1