Skip to content


K. Murugappa Chettiar Vs. C. Balasundaram Chetty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Miscellaneous Petition No. 4564 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad173; (1951)1MLJ513
ActsMadras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 - Sections 7
AppellantK. Murugappa Chettiar
RespondentC. Balasundaram Chetty and anr.
Appellant AdvocateV. Srinivasan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA. Narasimhachari and ;K.S. Narayana Aiyar, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....tribunal, which directed eviction of the petitioner for default in payment of rent. the rent was payable daily and admittedly the petitioner did not pay or tender any rent after 29th august 1949. as therent was payable daily, the default would occurunder section 7 of the madras buildings (leaseand rent control) act, 1946, after the lapse of 15days in respect of every day's rent. the only pointpressed on us by petitioner's learned counsel, isthat, there was another application for fixationof fair rent and according to the rent fixed in thatapplication, the landlord would have with himsufficient money to discharge the arrears relatingto the period of the alleged default. that may beso. but that does not save the tenant from theconsequence of the admitted default he has made.it is one.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. There is no error of law apparent on the face of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, which directed eviction of the petitioner for default in payment of rent. The rent was payable daily and admittedly the petitioner did not pay or tender any rent after 29th August 1949. As therent was payable daily, the default would occurunder Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Leaseand Rent Control) Act, 1946, after the lapse of 15days in respect of every day's rent. The only pointpressed on us by petitioner's learned Counsel, isthat, there was another application for fixationof fair rent and according to the rent fixed in thatapplication, the landlord would have with himsufficient money to discharge the arrears relatingto the period of the alleged default. That may beso. But that does not save the tenant from theconsequence of the admitted default he has made.It is one thing to say that the tenant has a rightto have the excess amount, on the basis of thefair rent, adjusted towards the arrears; it is another thing to say that he can escape the consequences of not tendering or paying the rent on orbefore the date allowed under Section 7 of the Act.This petition is dismissed with costs.


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