Thereupon the tenants filed writ Petition No.
R. Agrawala, for intervener in C.A. 50/68 .
From the judgment and Order dated the 20th January 1966, and 26th November 1968 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.
These two appeals are against the judgments of the Full Bench reported in 1966 2 MLJ 68 and the Division Bench respectively.
225/ and a sum of Rs.
Thereafter the matter again came up before the same learned Single Judge who, applying the provisions of the Act to the facts of the case held that the Act did number apply to the premises in question.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
50 of 1968 and 1201 of 1970.
1124 of 1963 and 153 of 1966.
was delivered by Alagiriswami, J. The dissenting Opinion of K.K. Mathew and P.N. Bhagwati JJ.
225/ was payable as an annual companytribution towards repairs and Rs.
Govindaswaminathan, A.VRangam, N.S. Sivam and A. Subshashini, for respondent No.
They became tenants of this building in May 1929, when the property was with one of the predecessors in title of the present landlords, who are the respondents in these appeals.
was delivered by Bhagwati, J. ALAGIRISWAMI, J. The appellants are the tenants of a property bearing door Nos.
1124 of 1963 seeking, to restrain the landlords from proceeding with that petition.
the appeals .
Though, the appellants became tenants in 1929 a registered lease deed came into existence only in 1935 under which the lease was to run upto 1 5 1969.
In 1949 the parties mutually agreed that the tenants were to pay a 25 per cent increase in rent and also certain other amounts, The present landlords purchased the property in 1962 and soon after filed an application under Section 4 of the Madras number Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent.
The lessee was entitled to renewal on the same terms, and companyditions for another period of fifteen years.
220/ towards public charges and taxes.
5 in both the appeals .
16 and 17 on the Poonamallee High Road in the city of Madras.
The learned Single Judge who heard the petition felt that in view of a long, series of decisions of Madras High Court under the various Rent Control Acts in force in Madras that they applied also to companytractual tenancies in the matter of payment of rent as well as eviction, the matter should be companysidered by a Full Bench in view of the decisions of this Court in Rent Control cases from certain other States.
1 3 in both .,
V. Gupte and A.S. Nambiar, for respondent Nos.
The monthly rent agreed upon was Rs.
S. Ramamurthy and S. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant in both the appeals .
The Full Bench after an elaborate companysideration came to the companyclusion that the Act companytrols both companytractual as well as statutory tenancies, that it is a companyplete Code, and enables both landlords and tenants to seek the benefit of fixation of fair rent, whether a companytractual tenancy prevails or it has been determined.
The Judgment of A.N. Ray, C.J., H.R. Khanna and A. Alagiri swami, JJ.
On appeal by the landlords a Division Bench of the High Court held that the premises were number exempted from the provisions of the Act and the Rent Controller has therefore jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of on merits the application for fixation of fair rent filed by the landlords.
