Skip to content


T.M. Munusamappa and Sons Vs. the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 178 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad789; (1952)1MLJ160
ActsAdministration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Sections 56; Administration of Evacuee Property Rules - Rule 14(2)
AppellantT.M. Munusamappa and Sons
RespondentThe Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Madras
Appellant AdvocateK.S. Varadachari, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateVepa P. Sarathy, Adv. for ;Adv. General for ;State Counsel
Excerpt:
- .....end of june 1951. after some correspondence between the parties, on 21st june 1951 the assistant custodian issued a notice to the petitioners directing them to vacate one of the two godowns by 23rd july 1951 and hand over its possession to his representative. they were also informed that in case they did not deliver possession peacefully, they would be evicted from one of the godowns with such police force as might be necessary. the said notice was issued on the basis that the petitioners were not tenants but were in permissive possassion.2. the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant, and that the custodian had no power to evict them forcibly. on the facts admitted, it is impossible to say that the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Subba Rao, J.

1. This is an application for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from taking forcible possession pursuant to the notice dated 21st June 1951. The petitioners are occupying two out of the three godowns bearing present Municipal door No. 7 in Stringer Street, G. T. Madras. The property was declared to be evacuee property. The peti-tioners were paying rent to the evacuee Haji Mohammad Abbas from 9th December 1943 tilt about 25th January 1951. After the property vested in the respondent under Section 8(4) of the Evacuee Properties Administration Act, 1950, the Deputy Tahsildar took formal possession of the same on 1st February 1951. He took a cheque for a sum of Rs. 150 from the petitioners and allowed them to continue in possession on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 150. It is not disputed that the petitioners were paying a rent of Rs. 150 per month from 1st February 1951 to the end of June 1951. After some correspondence between the parties, on 21st June 1951 the Assistant Custodian issued a notice to the petitioners directing them to vacate one of the two godowns by 23rd July 1951 and hand over its possession to his representative. They were also informed that in case they did not deliver possession peacefully, they would be evicted from one of the godowns with such police force as might be necessary. The said notice was issued on the basis that the petitioners were not tenants but were in permissive possassion.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant, and that the custodian had no power to evict them forcibly. On the facts admitted, it is impossible to say that the relationship between the parties is not that of landlord and tenant. The petitioners were admittedly the tenants of the evacuee. On 1st February 1951, the Deputy Tahsildar took only formal possession as the petitioners were in actual occupation. The petitioners also were paying rent from 1st February 1951 till the end of June. In the absence of any other evidence to establish that the petitioners were allowed to continue to be in possession under some arrangement other than that of a tenancy, I must hold that the petitioners are tenants on a monthly basis. If so, the only provision that enables the Custodian to evict the tenants is rule 14(2) framed under the Act (Act XXXI of 1950). It reads:

'In case of a lease or allotment granted by theCustodian himself, the Custodian may evicta person on any ground justifying eviction ofa tenant under any law relating to a controlof rents for the time being in force in theState concerned, or for any violation of theconditions of the lease or the allotment,'

The notice issued in this case does not complywith the provisions of the said rule. It wasobviously based on the assumption that thepetitioners were not tenants.

3. In the circumstances I direct a writ of prohibition to be issued restraining the respondent from evicting the petitioners otherwise than in strict compliance with the provisions of Rule 14(2) framed under the Act. The parties will bear their respective costs.


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