Skip to content


B.C. Diocese of Madurai and anr. Vs. Ganapathy Iyer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petns. Nos. 199 to 208 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Mad52
ActsTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Sections 10(2), 10(3) and 14(1) and (2)
AppellantB.C. Diocese of Madurai and anr.
RespondentGanapathy Iyer and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....o. p. nos. 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 131, 133, 135, 137, 157 and 195 of 1972 before the rent controller madurai (district munsif, madurai town) against various tenants for getting possession of the portions they are occupying. the eviction is prayed from on two grounds (1) under ss. 10(3)(b) and 14(1)(b) of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960, finding that the pleas for eviction the one under section 10(3)(b) and the other, under section 14(1)(b) are self-contradictory, the rent controller rejected the plea for eviction under section 10(3)(b), but ordered eviction under section 14(1)(b) on condition that the petitioners (landlords) give the statutory undertaking under section 14(2)(b) within a period of one week from the date of the order.2. aggrieved.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The Petitioners, who are the landlords, filed R. C. O. P. Nos. 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 131, 133, 135, 137, 157 and 195 of 1972 before the Rent Controller Madurai (District Munsif, Madurai Town) against various tenants for getting possession of the portions they are occupying. The eviction is prayed from on two grounds (1) Under Ss. 10(3)(b) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Finding that the pleas for eviction the one under Section 10(3)(b) and the other, under Section 14(1)(b) are self-contradictory, the Rent Controller rejected the plea for eviction under Section 10(3)(b), but ordered eviction under Section 14(1)(b) on condition that the petitioners (landlords) give the statutory undertaking under Section 14(2)(b) within a period of one week from the date of the order.

2. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the tenants preferred civil miscellaneous appeals individually,. By a common judgment, the Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai, without going into the bona fides of the requirement by the petitioners, dismissed the eviction petitions holding that the eviction ordered by the Rent Controller on condition that the petitioners give the statutory undertaking within a period of one week from the date of order of eviction, is not proper and legal and cannot therefore be sustained.

3. The main ground on which the Appellate Authority dismissed the eviction petitions is that the undertaking contemplated under Section 14(2)(b) is a condition precedent for ordering eviction under Section 14(1)(b) and as such the eviction petitions filed without giving such an undertaking have to be dismissed.

4. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioners herein have given an undertaking subsequent to the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority took up for consideration the question whether the undertaking so given by the petitioners can be construed to be legally valid and is in accordance with the relevant provisions of Sections 14(1)(b) and 14(2)(b). On this question, the appellate Authority held that the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller is not correct.

5. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in these revision petitions agreed that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not correct in view of the order passed by this court in C. R. P. No. 733 of 1969 D/- 25-7-1969 (Mad), by Sadasivam, J. Undertaking given before the Rent Controller even though subsequent to the order or eviction passed by the Rent Controller, can be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority for ordering eviction and such undertaking has to be construed as full compliance of the direction contemplated under Section 14(2)(b) of the Act.

6. The contention of the respondent in R. C. O. P. Nos. 115 and 157 of 1972, corresponding to C. M. A. Nos. 203 and 249 of 1973, to the effect that the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the eviction petitions has been negatived by both the Courts below. They have held that the landlords have the right to maintain an eviction petition against these tenants also. Hence, the finding regarding this aspect is confirmed.

7. As regards the ground for eviction under Section 10(3)(b) both the Courts below have negatived the contention of the petitioners herein. The finding regarding this aspect of the case is also confirmed.

8. In view of the fact that the undertaking given by the petitioners subsequent to the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller giving them one week's time to file such an undertaking can be taken as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 14(2)(b), the orders passed by the Appellate Authority are set aside and the cases are remanded to the file of the Appellate Authority for disposal afresh only on the question of bona fides of the requirements by the petitioners herein.

9. The civil revision petitions are allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. The lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal on or before 15-7-1976.

10. Revision allowed.


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