Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need to demolish and rebuild the premises for better financial returns. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the petition, holding …
The appellant-landlord sought eviction of six commercial tenants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need to demolish the existing 30‑year‑old building and erect a new double‑storeyed structure to augment his earnings. The …
The landlord leased a premises under a single lease deed covering Door No.27, which later acquired an additional number (Door No.28) after a road split the property. The tenant constructed structures on both doors, claimed ownership of the structures, and paid rent only for the land, leading the …
The landlords filed an eviction petition under the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming they wished to live separately from their father and had no house of their own. The petition did not specifically plead a bonafide need for the premises, merely stating a desire to …
The appellant, a tenant, entered into an 11‑month lease in February 1988 but later fell into arrears, eventually defaulting for six months. The respondent, the landlady, sought eviction under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, alleging …
The landlord, K.S. Sundararaju Chettiar, evicted his tenant M.R. Ramachandra Naidu under the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, first on the ground of his own business expansion and later also on the basis of a pawn‑broking partnership run by his wife and daughter‑in‑law. The …
The landlady sought eviction of her tenant under the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Controller dismissed the application; the appellate court held that personal necessity existed but required a notice to quit under Section 106 of the …
