Skip to content


In Re: J. Oliveira - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.834a
AppellantIn Re: J. Oliveira
Excerpt:
madras act i of 1900, section 3 - licensee--tenant. - - 3. under exhibit i the complainant was a licensee and he agreed that if he failed to pull down the hut after three days' notice, messrs......notice was duly served. after service of the notice and non-compliance herewith, messrs. a spin wall were entitled under the express terms of exhibit i, to pull down the hut. i am unable to take the view of the sessions judge that the complainant was a tenant entitled to the benefit of act i of 1900. he was a licensee and does not come within the definition of tenant in section 3 of the act.4. the convictions must be set aside and the fines, if paid, refunded.
Judgment:
ORDER

Arnold White, C.J.

1. The Public Prosecutor says he is unable to support these convictions. I entirely agree.

2. Exhibit I was signed by the complainant. It is not found he was not aware of the contents when he signed it.

3. Under Exhibit I the complainant was a licensee and he agreed that if he failed to pull down the hut after three days' notice, Messrs. A spin wall might pull it down. The Sessions Judge finds the notice was duly served. After service of the notice and non-compliance herewith, Messrs. A spin wall were entitled under the express terms of Exhibit I, to pull down the hut. I am unable to take the view of the Sessions Judge that the complainant was a tenant entitled to the benefit of Act I of 1900. He was a licensee and does not come within the definition of tenant in Section 3 of the Act.

4. The convictions must be set aside and the fines, if paid, refunded.


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