Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Additional Written Statements New Grounds Can Be Taken 2009 Sc

Additional Written Statements New Grounds Can Be Taken 2009 Sc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 11 |Likes:

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
REPORTABL E
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4148-4149 OF 2009(Arising out of SLP©Nos.23661-23662 of 2007)
Olympic Industries ----AppellantVersusMulla Hussainy Bhai MullaAkberally & Ors. ….Respondents
J U D G M E N TTARUN CHATTERJEE, J
.1.Leave granted.
2.
 These appeals are directed against the judgmentand order dated 15
th
of February, 2007 passed bya learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature atMadras in CRP (NPD) No.207 of 2002 and CMPNo.2249 of 2002, by which in the exercise of itsrevisional power, the High Court had rejected theapplication for permission to file additionalcounter statement.
 
1
 
3.The brief facts necessitated for the disposal othese appeals are as follows : The appellant became tenant under the respondents inrespect of a portion of premises bearing Door No.37, WestMada Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai-13 for nonresidential purposes at a monthly rental of Rs.750/-. Seekingfixation of fair rent at Rs.10,177/- per month, thelandlord/respondents filed a petition before the XII
th
Judge of the Small Causes Court at Chennai. The fair rent was soughtfor on the calculation of cost of construction of Madras Terraced Building (960 sq. ft) and Zinc Roofed Building (390sq. ft) and market value of the land. In the said applicationfor fixation of fair rent, the appellant filed his counterstatement contending that the monthly rent of Rs.750/-being paid by the appellant was the fair rent and could befixed as fair rent or alternatively to fix the fair rent accordingto the report of the Engineer appointed for that purpose.4.Trial commenced and P.W.1 was examined. At thisstage, the appellant filed an application seeking permissionbefore the Rent Controller to file additional counter statementraising a plea that the appellant was the tenant of the land
2
 
alone in respect of the portion of tenanted premises to theextent of about 600 sq. ft. In the additional counterstatement, the appellant also raised a plea that theappellant-Olympic Industries is only a lessee of the landmeasuring about 5600 sq. ft. and lessee of the roommeasuring 400 sq. ft. in the main building.5.This application for acceptance of additional counterstatement was resisted by the respondents alleging that theadditional counter statement containing new andinconsistent plea raised by the appellant at the belated stage,more particularly, after completion of examination of witnesses, could not be allowed as that it would causeserious prejudice to the respondents. The Rent Controllerallowed the said application, inter alia, on a finding thatopportunity must be given to the appellant to put forth hisadditional defence. Feeling aggrieved, the respondentspreferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which alsoaccepted the additional counter statement, inter alia, on afinding that when the existence of the lease was admitted,the party, that is the appellant, can file such additionalcounter statement. The Appellate Authority also took the
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->