High CourtsDivision Bench(1949) 10 MAD CK 0033

R. Venkatesachary and Others vs The Judge, Court of Small Causes and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 October 1949 · Citation: AIR 1950 Mad 366

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajamannar, C.J · Chandra Reddi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.P. No. 3985 of 1949

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 124 words
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.