Skip to content


Virappa Nayak Vs. Kathana Talavachi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad428
AppellantVirappa Nayak
RespondentKathana Talavachi
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - rent act--sale of tenant's interest by creditor--subsequent sale by landlord for arrears of rent--right of purchaser. - - but, assuming that it was sufficient and that the sale under the rent act was valid, the question arises whether it had not been defeated by the sale of the holding in execution of the decree of the civil court......the holding. in execution of the decree, the holding was sold on the 18th april 1874. on the 14th april the landlord issued a notice of his intention to sell summarily, and on the 16th april this notice was affixed to the house of the tenant with the remark that he was absent. it may be doubted whether this service should have been accepted as sufficient without further proof; but, assuming that it was sufficient and that the sale under the rent act was valid, the question arises whether it had not been defeated by the sale of the holding in execution of the decree of the civil court. it has recently been held that a landlord has not a lien on the holding for the rent and that a sale of the holding after mortgage conveys the tenant's interest to the purchaser burdened with the mortgage......
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. In this case the holding had been mortgaged, and in 1873 the mortgagee brought a suit and obtained a decree for realization of the debt by sale of the holding. In execution of the decree, the holding was sold on the 18th April 1874. On the 14th April the landlord issued a notice of his intention to sell summarily, and on the 16th April this notice was affixed to the house of the tenant with the remark that he was absent. It may be doubted whether this service should have been accepted as sufficient without further proof; but, assuming that it was sufficient and that the sale under the Rent Act was valid, the question arises whether it had not been defeated by the sale of the holding in execution of the decree of the Civil Court. It has recently been held that a landlord has not a lien on the holding for the rent and that a sale of the holding after mortgage conveys the tenant's interest to the purchaser burdened with the mortgage. The validity of the mortgagee's title having been recognized, effect must be given to it, and we must hold that after the sale under the decree of the Civil Court there remained no interest in the tenant which was available for sale by the landlord.

2. The appeal is allowed, the decree of the Lower Appellate Court is reversed and that of the Court of First Instance is restored; but, under the circumstances, we direct that each party bear his or her own costs in the Lower Appellate Court and in this Court.


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