Skip to content


In Re: A.S. Vijayaraghavalu Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 6111 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad40; (1951)2MLJ486
ActsMadras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 - Sections 7(2)(IV)
AppellantIn Re: A.S. Vijayaraghavalu Chetty
Advocates:A. Subramaniam, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....are that the petitioner has been the cause of frequent quarrels and has made it impossible for the tenants occupying the other portions of the building to live in the house along with the petitioner. he has therefore been ordered to be evicted under section 7(2) (iv) of madras act xv of 1946. the contention before us on behalf of the petitioner is that under that provision it is only if the tenant is guilty of acts and conduct which are a nuisance to the occupants of buildings other than the building which the tenant is occupying that the tenant can be evicted; but if one tenant is guilty of similar acts in respect of tenants occupying other portions of the same build-ing, the provision would not apply. we do not agree that the language of the enactment compels us to this absurd.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

In this case a most extra-ordinary contention has been raised. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of a building. Other portions of the building have been let to other tenants. The concurrent findings of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal are that the petitioner has been the cause of frequent quarrels and has made it impossible for the tenants occupying the other portions of the building to live in the house along with the petitioner. He has therefore been ordered to be evicted under Section 7(2) (iv) of Madras Act XV of 1946. The contention before us on behalf of the petitioner is that under that provision it is only if the tenant is guilty of acts and conduct which are a nuisance to the occupants of buildings other than the building which the tenant is occupying that the tenant can be evicted; but if one tenant Is guilty of similar acts in respect of tenants occupying other portions of the same build-ing, the provision would not apply. We do not agree that the language of the enactment compels us to this absurd conclusion. 'Building' has been denned in the Act as meaning 'a part of a building let or to be let separatery'. It is obvious that in this case parts of the same building have been let separately to different tenants. Tnese parts of the same building would constitute 'buildings' within the meaning of the Act. It is impossible to contend that one portion of the same building is not in the neighbourhood of another portion of the same building. The result wouid be that the tenant in this case must be deemed to have been guiity of such acts and conduct which are a nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood. The order of eviction was righlly passed against him. The application is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //