Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Mr.N.N.Gafoor vs Mr.R.Srikumaran cites

Karur Ghee Stores Rep. By V. Periasamy vs N. Palaniappan And Another on 27 April, 2001

“…........ From the above decision, it is clear that even if there is any lack of pleadings, if the parties understood the case and have adduced evidence, application is not liable to be rejected merely on the ground of lack of pleadings, or vague pleadings. In this case, tenant volunteered and out a contention that if he is liable to be evicted, he will be put to greater hardship than the landlord and, therefore, he wanted the Petition to be dismissed. For the said purpose, he gave evidence that he has invested huge amounts in the business and how far he will be put to great hardship is a matter which has to be considered.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Amitkumar Amichand By Partner S. ... vs Jawanthraj And Ors. on 7 January, 1982

24. The rulings cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/tenant in 1982 (95) L.W 625 in the case of M/s. Amithakumar Amichand, by partner S.Mohanlal Vs. Jawanthraj and Others, also will not help the case of the Revision Petitioner/tenant. As in the reported ruling, it is for the additional accommodation and the proposal to start an independent business by a person doing joint business. In this case, the landlord as Respondent in the Civil Revision Petition as Petitioner in RCOP had made clear that due to his intention to run Restaurant in the leased out premises as part of his business for additional accommodation. There is clear evidence that the entire building is occupied by him in addition to the lodge and he needs an additional accommodation to run Restaurant.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - S Mohan - Full Document

Kathan vs Scaw Manak Chand Shohaji on 6 November, 2003

21. The reported ruling cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/tenant in 2004 (1) CTC 668 in the case of Kathan Vs. Scaw Manak Chand Shohaji is with regard to owner's occupation of the premises where the landlord sought the demised premises for his residential purpose, wherein it was held that the landlord has to prove that he has no other premises in his occupation in the same City, Town or Village. Landlord had not even pleaded that he is not in occupation of residential building of his own. The ratio laid down in the said ruling will not help the Revision Petitioner/tenant in this case. The words in the evidence stated that except the premises for the occupation of the tenant in the case before this Court, the entire building is in occupation of the landlord/Respondent for his business. It is a clear case that he requires the leased-out premises for his business purpose. It is also the case of the landlord that the tenant in this case/Revision Petitioner is running a chain of Restaurant within the same City that had been discussed by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, comparatively, the loss or hardship caused to the tenant will be less compared to the loss or hardship caused to the landlord in this case. 21/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - P Sridevan - Full Document
1