business in the plaintiff's premises. The tenancy does not devolve on the defendants 1 to 6 and 17 on the death ... were continuing the said business, then only, the tenancy would devolve upon the defendants 1 to 6 and 17 and therefore, the tenancy between
lost interest in protecting his tenancy rights as
available to him under the law, the same right would devolve
upon and inhere in the wife
entitled to the suit property. He expired on 17.11.1990 and his right devolved upon the Plaintiffs, who are his children.
(xi)The title of Appellants ... possession was not adverse.
(xiii)P.Arputham is still in possession, claiming tenancy rights, others have vacated during the aforesaid period. Only on 02.07.1987 they
Unknown vs M.M.Naina Exports (P) Ltd on 27 September, 2012
Author: S.Vimala
Yuba T.Reichard vs State Rep By on 12 April, 2012
Crl.O.P.Nos
Elumalai Naicker .. Petitioner - vs - on 17 April, 2012
Author: V.Periya Karuppiah
Bench: V.Periya
