Skip to content


Edpuri Rama Subbiah Vs. C.J. Cole and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 7387 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad590; (1951)IIMLJ663
ActsMadras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 - Sections 11(2)
AppellantEdpuri Rama Subbiah
RespondentC.J. Cole and anr.
Advocates:P.C. Parthasarathy Iyengar, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - (1) the landlord should have failed to make thenecessary repairs after notice is given by thetenant and (2) the court should have given permission to him to make the repairs after the landlord made default after such notice was servedby the tenant......the respondent is the tenant of that house. he filed r.c.p. no. 118 of 1949 on the file of the bent controller, kurnool, under section 11 (2) of madras act xxv (25) of 1949 praying for permission of the rent controller to effect repairs to the house and to deduct the costs thereof from the rent payable by him. the petitioner contended that he was not at all informed by the respondent about the repairs required for the building and that the latter had no power to make the repairs without complying with the provisions of section 11 (2) of the act. the rent controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the respondent has not applied for permission before undertaking the repairs as required by section 11 (2) of the act. the district munsif agreed with the bent controller that the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Subba Rao, J.

1. This is an application for issuing a writ of 'certiorari' to quash the order of the District Munsif of Kumool setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, Kurnool. The petitioner is the owner of the house bearing Door No. 1/69, Bastian Road Kurnool. The respondent is the tenant of that house. He filed R.C.P. No. 118 of 1949 on the file of the Bent Controller, Kurnool, under Section 11 (2) of Madras Act XXV (25) Of 1949 praying for permission of the Rent Controller to effect repairs to the house and to deduct the costs thereof from the rent payable by him. The petitioner contended that he was not at all informed by the respondent about the repairs required for the building and that the latter had no power to make the repairs without complying with the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Act. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the respondent has not applied for permission before undertaking the repairs as required by Section 11 (2) of the Act. The District Munsif agreed with the Bent Controller that the respondent made repairs without taking the permission of the Rent Controller. Not withstanding that fact, he allowed the petition to the extent of about Rs. 93 by invoking certain equitable doctrines. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no scope for the application of equities in construing a Statutory provision and the respondent cannot ask for any relief contrary to the express provisions of Section 11. 'Section 11 (2) reads as follows:

'If a landlord fails to make the necessary repairs to the building within a reasonable time after notice is given by the tenant, it shall be competent for the Controller to direct on application by the tenant that such repairs may be made by the tenant and that the cost thereof may be deducted from the rent which is payable by him.'

The section therefore lays down two conditions before a tenant can make the repairs to a building:(1) the landlord should have failed to make thenecessary repairs after notice is given by thetenant and (2) the Court should have given permission to him to make the repairs after the landlord made default after such notice was servedby the tenant. In the present case neither of theconditions were complied with. The respondentdid not serve the requisite notice on the landlordasking him to make the necessary repairs nor didhe make the repairs with the previous permissionof the Bent Controller. Section 11 can only be invokedfor the purpose of securing the requisite permission from the Bent Controller to make the necessary repairs. It cannot obviously apply to a casewhere a tenant has made the repairs withouttaking the requisite permission, and for getting anorder from the Bent Controller for realising theamount so spent. The order of the Bent Controller is correct and that of the appellate authority iscontrary to the express provisions of Section 11. Theorder of the District Munsif is set aside and therespondent will pay the costs of the petitioner.Advocate's fee Rs. 50.


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