Skip to content


R. Venkatesachary and ors. Vs. the Judge, Court of Small Causes and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1949)2MLJ784
AppellantR. Venkatesachary and ors.
RespondentThe Judge, Court of Small Causes and anr.
Excerpt:
- order1. there is no error of jurisdiction or an apparent error of law on the face of the record. the appellate tribunal has found that the landlord required the entire house for his occupation. though the definition of a building in the act includes a portion of a building, it does not mean that the owner of a house, portions of which have been let separately, cannot file an application for obtaining possession of the entire house as a building. what is sufficient for the landlord is not the real question, but whether he requires the entire building bona fide for his occupation. the finding that he requires it in this case is a finding of fact. the application is therefore dismissed with costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. There is no error of jurisdiction or an apparent error of law on the face of the record. The appellate tribunal has found that the landlord required the entire house for his occupation. Though the definition of a building in the Act includes a portion of a building, it does not mean that the owner of a house, portions of which have been let separately, cannot file an application for obtaining possession of the entire house as a building. What is sufficient for the landlord is not the real question, but whether he requires the entire building bona fide for his occupation. The finding that he requires it in this case is a finding of fact. The application is therefore dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //