Skip to content


Lingambhotla Subbayya Vs. the Subordinate Judge and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCiv. Petn. Misc. No. 5099 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad864a; (1951)1MLJ514
ActsMadras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 - Sections 7
AppellantLingambhotla Subbayya
RespondentThe Subordinate Judge and anr.
Appellant AdvocateD.P. Narayana Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJ. Sithamahalakshmi and ;M. Satyamathi, Advs.
Excerpt:
- .....an appln. for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. both the bent controller & the appellate tribunal found that there was default, but held that default by itself cannot be regarded as a valid ground to eject a tenant in a case where the tenant proves that by long practice the house owner did not insist on regular monthly payment of rent. the appellate tribunal thought that this conclusion was justified by the spirit of act xv [15] of 1946. we have no hesitation in saying that both the kent controller & the appellate tribunal committed a clear error of law. there cannot be an agreement under which rent is payable at irregular intervals. it may be that, the landlord was not insisting on regular payments & was accepting without protest arrears of rent which had accumulated.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. The petnr. filed an appln. for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Both the Bent Controller & the Appellate Tribunal found that there was default, but held that default by itself cannot be regarded as a valid ground to eject a tenant in a case where the tenant proves that by long practice the house owner did not insist on regular monthly payment of rent. The Appellate Tribunal thought that this conclusion was justified by the spirit of Act xv [15] of 1946. We have no hesitation in saying that both the Kent Controller & the Appellate Tribunal committed a clear error of law. There cannot be an agreement under which rent is payable at irregular intervals. It may be that, the landlord was not insisting on regular payments & was accepting without protest arrears of rent which had accumulated ; but when he choose a to apply Under Section 7 of the Act, he will be entitled to an order of eviction if he can prove that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent by the last day of the month nest following that for which the rent is payable. It is not suggested that the tenancy was not a monthly tenancy; therefore, the rent for each month was payable before the last day of the month next following. Both the Eent Controller & the Appellate Tribunal have found that there was default in payment of rent according to this provision. They ought to have, therefore, passed an order of eviction. The orders of the Bent Controller & the Appellate Tribunal are quashed & there will be an order for eviction in favour of the petnr.


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