Skip to content


V.M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar Vs. Rahman Baig and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 7915 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad173; (1952)1MLJ61
ActsMadras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 - Sections 7(2)
AppellantV.M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar
RespondentRahman Baig and anr.
Appellant AdvocateN.K. Pattabhirama and ;N.K. Mohanarangam Pillai, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateM. Natesan and ;V. Ramaswami Iyer, Advs.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....vellore.2. the petitioner is the owner of the building. he rented it out to the respondent on a monthly rental of rs. 16-8-0 in the year 1944, and he had taken an advance of rs 33. for the month of march 1949 the tenant did not pay the rent before the last day of april, but on 31st may 1949 he sent a sum of rs. 33 towards the rent for those two months. the petitioner filed the application before the rent controller for evicting the respondent on the ground amongst others that he did not pay the rent for the month of march before the end of april. among other contentions the respondent raised the plea that the petitioner consented to certain alterations to the house to be made by the respondent by spending the money from and out of the rent payable by him, and that pursuant to that.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Subba Rao, J.

1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiprari and for quashing the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore made in appeal against the order of the Kent Controller, Vellore.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the building. He rented it out to the respondent on a monthly rental of Rs. 16-8-0 in the year 1944, and he had taken an advance of Rs 33. For the month of March 1949 the tenant did not pay the rent before the last day of April, but on 31st May 1949 he sent a sum of Rs. 33 towards the rent for those two months. The petitioner filed the application before the Rent Controller for evicting the respondent on the ground amongst others that he did not pay the rent for the month of March before the end of April. Among other contentions the respondent raised the plea that the petitioner consented to certain alterations to the house to be made by the respondent by spending the money from and out of the rent payable by him, and that pursuant to that arrangement he was taking steps for getting the repairs done. Later on, having come to know that the petitioner was taking steps to evict him, the respondent sent the money before the end of May.

The learned Subordinate Judge on the materials placed before him found that because of that arrangement the respondent kept the rent for one month and that when he found a change in the attitude of the landlord he remitted that amount. If there was an arrangement between the landlord and the tenant in and by which the rent of any particular month was to be appropriated or spent in a particular manner, it cannot be said that the rent for the month was due within the meaning of Section 7. I cannot therefore say that there is an error of law apparent on the record or that the Subordinate Judge acted without jurisdiction.

3. The application is therefore dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without costs.


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