Skip to content


Chidambaram Chetty Vs. Somasundram Chetty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.261
AppellantChidambaram Chetty
RespondentSomasundram Chetty and ors.
Cases ReferredMuthusami Pillai v. Arunachellam Chettiar
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - madras rent recovery act (viii of 1865), sections 38 and 39--right of landlord to proceed against lessee of melvaram right under sections 38 and 39. - - all that section 39 of the act requires was done and the contention must fail.1. the first contention is that the defendant could not proceed against the appellant under sections 38 and 39 of the rent recovery act as the appellant is not a cultivating tenant but a middleman who has taken a lease of the melvaram. the contention is concluded against the appellant by the decision in muthusami pillai v. arunachellam chettiar 29 m. 79 : 15 m.l.j. 361.2. the next contention is that there was no proper notice. all that section 39 of the act requires was done and the contention must fail.3. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The first contention is that the defendant could not proceed against the appellant under Sections 38 and 39 of the Rent Recovery Act as the appellant is not a cultivating tenant but a middleman who has taken a lease of the melvaram. The contention is concluded against the appellant by the decision in Muthusami Pillai v. Arunachellam Chettiar 29 M. 79 : 15 M.L.J. 361.

2. The next contention is that there was no proper notice. All that Section 39 of the Act requires was done and the contention must fail.

3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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