<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (11) TMI 701 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308934</link>
    <description>A revisional court under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 exercises supervisory jurisdiction limited to legality, regularity and propriety, and cannot reappraise evidence to replace concurrent findings of fact unless they are illegal, irregular or wholly unreasonable. The article also explains that eviction on nuisance requires proof of actionable private nuisance affecting neighbouring occupiers, while waste must show acts likely to materially impair the building&#039;s value or utility. On the facts discussed, the alleged nuisance was only trivial and the alleged damage was not material, so the eviction order could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2023 12:52:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 701 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308934</link>
      <description>A revisional court under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 exercises supervisory jurisdiction limited to legality, regularity and propriety, and cannot reappraise evidence to replace concurrent findings of fact unless they are illegal, irregular or wholly unreasonable. The article also explains that eviction on nuisance requires proof of actionable private nuisance affecting neighbouring occupiers, while waste must show acts likely to materially impair the building&#039;s value or utility. On the facts discussed, the alleged nuisance was only trivial and the alleged damage was not material, so the eviction order could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>