Skip to content


In Re: V.R.R. Sami Ayyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1946Mad321; (1946)1MLJ134
AppellantIn Re: V.R.R. Sami Ayyar
Cases ReferredMahmood v. Kerala Corporation
Excerpt:
- - however, it is unnecessary to consider this aspect of the matter any further because the point was clearly abandoned in the trial court, although the learned district judge wrongly allowed it to be revived before him in appeal;.....decree for eviction is contrary to section 7 (a) of the'madras house rent control order, 1941. the learned district judge held that this provision did not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to grant a decree for eviction, but merely controlled the execution of such a decree by prescribing a special procedure where eviction is sought. a reference to sub-clause (ii) of clause (bb) of subrule (2) of rule 81 of the defence of india rules indicates that this view of the scope of section 7 (a) of the house rent control order is correct and that the jurisdiction of the civil courts to grant a decree is not ousted.2. reliance is placed on the decision of chandrasekhara aiyar, j., in mahmood v. kerala corporation, ltd. : air1945mad181 but with due respect i consider that the wording of the.....
Judgment:

Byers, J.

1. The main ground urged in seeking the admission of this Second Appeal is that the decree for eviction is contrary to Section 7 (A) of the'Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941. The learned District Judge held that this provision did not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant a decree for eviction, but merely controlled the execution of such a decree by prescribing a special procedure where eviction is sought. A reference to sub-clause (ii) of Clause (bb) of subrule (2) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules indicates that this view of the scope of Section 7 (A) of the House Rent Control Order is correct and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to grant a decree is not ousted.

2. Reliance is placed on the decision of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., in Mahmood v. Kerala Corporation, Ltd. : AIR1945Mad181 but with due respect I consider that the wording of the section is not such as to deprive the Civil Courts of their power to entertain suits for eviction and to adjudicate upon them. What the Control Order prohibits is eviction outside the provision of Section 7 (A) of the Order and to hold that the entire jurisdiction of the civil Courts in these matters apart from eviction is excluded would be ignoring the limitations placed by Rule 81(2)(bb)(ii) on the exercise of the delegated powers. However, it is unnecessary to consider this aspect of the matter any further because the point was clearly abandoned in the trial Court, although the learned District Judge wrongly allowed it to be revived before him in appeal; but this apart it is clear that the appellant is still protected by the Control Order.

3. It is further contended that the learned District Judge has not properly framed the points for decision; in specific terms he may not have done so, but his discussion shows that they were present in his mind and the error is not a substantial one within the meaning of Section 100(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The final point taken is that the learned Judge has not dealt with the question of notice to quit. As the invalidity of the notice depended on the tenancy being an annual one, which the defendants were unable to prove, the point was probably taken no further than the grounds of appeal.

4. The appeal is ordered to be dismissed under Order 41, rule n of the Code of Civil Procedure.


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