SHAW WALLACE AND CO. LTD. versus GOVINDAS PURUSHOTHAMDAS AND ANR.

SHAW WALLACE AND CO. LTD. versus GOVINDAS PURUSHOTHAMDAS AND ANR.

High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction by modifying the fair rent fixation, including 'platform and henpen' in the plinth area, as admission by tenant and statutory provisions were ignored by courts below.

Parties
Appellant: Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.; Respondent: Govindas Purushothamdas; Respondent: Girdhari Govindas
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Madras High Court Revision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fair Rent Fixation, Revisional Jurisdiction, Plinth Area Calculation
Rent Control Law Fair Rent Fixation Revisional Jurisdiction Plinth Area Calculation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.

Appellant

Govindas Purushothamdas

Respondent

Girdhari Govindas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Madras High Court Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court could interfere with concurrent findings on plinth area for fair rent fixation
  2. 2 Whether 'platform and henpen' should be included in building's plinth area under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960

Ratio Decidendi

High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction by modifying the fair rent fixation, including 'platform and henpen' in the plinth area, as admission by tenant and statutory provisions were ignored by courts below.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Hearing fee assessed at Rs.10,000/-