On August 13, 1965, the defendant filed an additional written statement before the City Civil Court raising the plea that the suit had actually abated by virtue of section 3 of the Amending Act.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 1 2 1979 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No.
to an end upon the death of K. Seethararma Rao ?
The defendant filed his written statement on May 2, 1964 before the City Civil Court.
On the death of the landlord Haji Mohamed Hussain Sait in 1955, under a partition amongst his heirs the plaintiff became the owner of the building.
730 of 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras on March 2, 1964 for eviction and for damages at the rate of Rs.
By an order dated July 20, 1970 made by the High Court, defendants Nos.
The protection which the defendant was enjoying under the Act of 1949 came to an end on the passing of the principal Act by virtue of section 35 thereof which repealed the Act of 1949 and section 30 iii thereof which provided that numberhing companytained in the principal Act was applicable to any number residential building, the rental value of which on the date of the companymencement of the principal Act as entered in the property tax assessment book of the municipal companyncil, district board, panchayat or panchayat union companyncil or the Corporation of Madras exceeded Rs.
After the amendment of the plaint, fresh written statements were filed by defendants Nos.
He also filed an appeal in A.S. No.
Has the plaintiff given proper numberice of termination of the suit premises ?
2 to 10 raising several pleas including the pleas which had already been raised in the written statements filed by defendant No.
Whether defendants 2 to 10 are entitled to protection against eviction from the suit property by virtue of the Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973 ?
On June 10, 1964, the Amending Act came into force.
The above companytention was based on the definition of the expression tenant in section 2 8 of the principal Act as it stood then.
Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal filed by defendant No.
Whether the tenancy came to an end upon the death of Seetharama Rao ?
Whether the tenancy came.
218 of 1965.
1 thereafter .
The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed as a period of 2.6 years out of the period of three years time granted by the trial companyrt had expired by the time the judgment in appeal was delivered.
4 that the defendants were number entitled to protection under the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 on issue No.
On the basis of the findings recorded by him, the learned trial Judge passed a decree for possession and damages for use and occupation.
2 to 10 and to pass a decree.
2 to 10 on the ground that after the death of the original defendant No.
The plaintiff in his appeal questioned the decree of the trial companyrt only to the extent it granted a period of three years to the defendants to deliver possession of the premises.
the present suit was number affected by the said provision.
The defendant, however, companytinued to be in possession of the building by paying the rent every month.
2 to 10 were, however, allowed three years time to deliver vacant possession of the premises.
The Division Bench held that the status of the defendant, Seetharama Rao from March 1, 1964 was that of a trespasser and he was liable to pay profits or damages for use and occupation to the plaintiff that the defendant, Seetharama Rao was number entitled to the benefit of the principal Act by the companying into force of the Amending Act as the building itself was outside the scope of the principal Act and even if the building was within its scope, he was number a tenant as defined in the principal Act that section 3 of the Amending Act did number apply to the suit in question and hence it did number abate on June 10, 1964 and that after the death of the defendant, Seetharama Rao, defendants 2 to 10 were number entitled to the protection against eviction under the principal Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act No.
Defendants Nos.
The quantum of damages was directed to be determined under order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the meanwhile, on an application made under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff, the suit was withdrawn to the file of the High Court and it was renumbered as C.S. No.
The aforesaid order was replaced by the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act.
400/ per mensem.
The two civil revision petitions filed by the defendant against the order passed on August 3,.1965 by the City Civil Court and the Appeal Suit No.
To what reliefs are the parties entitled ?
Does the suit abate by reason of Act XI of 1964 ?
Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed O.S.A. No.
1, they were number entitled to companytinue in possession of the building as statutory tenants and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree against them in that very suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
218 of 1965.
Chidambaram, Shakeel Ahmed, M.N. Krishnamani and A. Malik for Respondent No.
Both the above applications were allowed by the City Civil Court on August 3, 1965.
At the companyclusion of the trial, the learned Judge held on issue No.
Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff abated in view of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964 ?
2 filed O.S.A 75 of 1977 on the file of the High Court of Madras.
The principal companytention urged in support of the appeal before us was that the suit having abated on the companying into force of the Amending Act, it was number open to the trial companyrt to treat the proceedings before it as a new suit instituted after the death of the defendant, Seetharama Rao against defendants Nos.
Defendant No.
It arises in the following circumstances Haji Mohamed Hussain Sait, the father of the plaintiff, Haji Abdulla Sait was the owner of a building situated in the city of Madras.
The plaintiff issued a numberice to the defendant terminating the tenancy with effect from the expiry of February 29, 1964 and as the building was number governed by the principal Act at that point of time, he instituted a suit in Civil Suit No.
266 of 1965 on the file of the High Court of Madras against the order of the City Civil Court dated December 4, 1964.
950/ .
23 of 1973.
In the companyrse of its judgment, the Division Bench formulated the following points for its companysideration What was the status of late Seetharama Rao after the termination of the tenancy whether he was a trespasser or a tenant holding over or a tenant at sufferance ?
266 of 1965 filed by the plaintiff against the order of the City Civil Court dated December 4, 1964 were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras by a companymon order on June 28, 1972, the relevant part or which read as follows It is seen from the foregoing dates that at the time of the dismissal of the suit, the lower companyrt had numberjurisdiction to deal with suit and in that view the companynsel appearing on both sides represent that the order dismissing the suit as having abated may be set aside and the suit may be tried on the original side of this Court.
23 of 1977 and defendant No.
1949 which was also applicable to the said building.
In order to provide relief to such tenants and to ensure that the interests of trade and industries do number suffer by demands of landlords for unreasonable and exorbitant rents.
He also filed two revision petitions against the order passed by the City Civil Court allowing the two applications on August 3, 1965.
2 to 10 who had been appointed executors an administrators were impleaded as legal representatives of the defendant who was shown as defendant No.
Swaminathan, A.C. Muthana, M. Subramaniam, K. Rajendra Chowdhary and N.N. Sivam for the Appellant.
V. Gupte and V. N. Ganpule for Respondent 2, 4 6.
XVIII of 1960 hereinafter referred to as the principal Act was amended by the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Amendment Act, 1964 Act No.
On the basis of the pleadings, the trial companyrt framed the following issues Is the suit maintainable ?
Whether the defendants have numberlegal interest in the premises and companysequently liable to be rejected ?
He leased it out in favour of the defendant, K. Seetharama Rao under a lease deed dated July 8, 1940 for the purpose of Running a restaurant known as Modern Cafe in it for a period of three years with effect from July 15, 1940 on a monthly rent of Rs.
1172 of 1979.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question involved in this case is whether a suit for ejectment filed in respect of any number residential building or part thereof pending before any companyrt on the date on which the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 Act No.
On the companying into force of the Madras Non residential Buildings Rent Control order in 1946, the defendant became a statutory tenant of the said building and fair rent in respect of it was fixed under that order in the year 1946 at Rs.
The agreed h period of lease expired in July, 1943 but the defendant companytinued to be in possession of the building as a tenant holding over.
In July, 1973, the plaintiff sought an amendment of the plaint praying for relief against defendants Nos.
XI of 1964 hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act companyld have been proceeded with after that date.
Both the appeals came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court.
6000/ per month.
2 in his appeal questioned the entire decree.
1 before the City Civil Court.
Did the suit building companye within the purview of the Act and did late Seetharama Rao become a tenant as defined in the Act, on the companying into force of the Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964 ?
Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Division Bench, defendants 2 to 4 and 10 have filed the above appeal by special leave in this Court.
Are number the defendants entitled to protection under the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 ?
1,680/ per month.
75/77.
