Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Doraiswami Gurukkal And Anr. vs Subramania Gurukkal And Ors. on 19 December, 1927 cites

Battina Appanna And Ors. vs Sreemanthu Raja Yarlagadda ... on 3 April, 1917

In this respect I am unable to distinguish the present case from the decision in Battina Appanna v. Sreemanthu Raja Yarlagadda Venkata Ramalinga Bahadur Zamindar Garu (1917) 33 MLJ 355. I may here observe that all the decisions under the Rent Recovery Act are not useful for discussion in the present case as the machinery provided in the two Acts is somewhat different. In the case just cited it was observed:
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

C.V.C.T. Venkatachalam Chetty And Ors. vs Aiyamperumaul Tevan And Ors. on 18 December, 1918

4. The decisions in Arunachallam Chettiar v. Maingalam (1915) ILR 40 M 640 : 31 MLJ 168, Venkatachalam Chetti v. Aiyamperumal Tevan (1919) ILR 42 M 702 : 37 MLJ 248 and The Midnapore Zatnindari Company, Ltd. v. Muthappudayan (1920) ILR 44 M 534 : 40 MLJ 213 show that the charging of additional rent when a certain contingency happens falls within the principle of Battina Appanna v. Sreemanthu Raja Yarlagadda (1917) 33 MLJ 355 namely, when circumstances require new adjustment and support the above conclusion. One observation I wish to make is that whether the view I have expressed is or is not correct, it is not an enhancement to which Section 30 of the Act would apply. Section 30 applies only to enhancements which might be regarded as permanent at the time of the application, that is, as continuously operating in the future as far as one can see until some new circumstances arise which require another enhancement or reduction, but not to cases where it is known the conditions may be constantly fluctuating.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

The Manager To The Lessees Of The ... vs Chidambaram Chetti And Six Ors. on 25 September, 1913

In The Manager to the Lessees of the Sivasankara Zamindary v. Chidambaram Chetti (1913) ILR 38 M 524 it was held that if the rent was enhanced according to a clause already embodied in the patta providing that additional rent would be paid for increased area, then there would be no need for the landlord to invoke the aid of Section 42 (1) (a) or for the Collector to settle the dispute under Section 42 (2).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1