Messrs Photo Litho Press Vs. S. Valliammal
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1662 of 1979.
Petitioner: Messrs Photo Litho Press
Respondent: S. Valliammal
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1662 of 1979.
Judges: M.H. KANIA & N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 15, 1988
Head Note:
RENT LAW
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960:
Section 14(1)(b) – Building required by landlord for demolishing and erecting a new one – Appeal of tenant-appellant dismissed.
Appeal dismissed
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant before us is that while Clause(b) of Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, can be invoked when the building in question is required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, no plea was advanced by the landlord respondent that the building was required immediately for demolishing it. We have considered the material on the record and we are satisfied that the only conclusion possible on such material is that the building was immediately required for that purpose.
2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. In the circumstances, however we permit the appellant to remain in possession of the premises till 31 October, 1988, provided the appellant furnishes an undertaking in the usual terms within four weeks from today.
1. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant before us is that while Clause(b) of Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, can be invoked when the building in question is required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, no plea was advanced by the landlord respondent that the building was required immediately for demolishing it. We have considered the material on the record and we are satisfied that the only conclusion possible on such material is that the building was immediately required for that purpose.
2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. In the circumstances, however we permit the appellant to remain in possession of the premises till 31 October, 1988, provided the appellant furnishes an undertaking in the usual terms within four weeks from today.
