Skip to content


S. Venkataratnam Vs. G. Lalluram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1950)2MLJ489
AppellantS. Venkataratnam
RespondentG. Lalluram
Cases ReferredRaju Chetti v. Jagannathdas Govindas
Excerpt:
- - the appellate authority was clearly in error in so holding. it has been held by this court that it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the transfer of property act before an application for eviction can be filed under section 7 of madras act xv of 1946. it follows that provided any of the conditions laid down in section 7, sub-section (2) of that act is satisfied, the landlord will be entitled to an order evicting the tenant......that there was default in the payment of rent on the date of the application for eviction, but the appellate authority has dismissed the application on the ground that as the period of the lease had not expired, the terms of section 7(2) of madras act xv of 1946 cannot apply. the appellate authority was clearly in error in so holding. the opening words of section 7, sub-section (1) makes it abundantly clear that even during the termination of the tenancy a tenant may be evicted in accordance with the provisions of that section. it has been held by this court that it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the transfer of property act before an application for eviction can be filed under section 7 of madras act xv of 1946. it follows that provided.....
Judgment:

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.

1. The petitioner is the landlord and the contesting respondent is the tenant in whose favour a lease deed was executed on 16th July, 1943, by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner for a period of ten years on a rental of Rs 16 per mensem. There is no dispute that there was default in the payment of rent on the date of the application for eviction, but the appellate authority has dismissed the application on the ground that as the period of the lease had not expired, the terms of Section 7(2) of Madras Act XV of 1946 cannot apply. The appellate authority was clearly in error in so holding. The opening words of Section 7, Sub-section (1) makes it abundantly clear that even during the termination of the tenancy a tenant may be evicted in accordance with the provisions of that section. It has been held by this Court that it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act before an application for eviction can be filed under Section 7 of Madras Act XV of 1946. It follows that provided any of the conditions laid down in Section 7, Sub-section (2) of that Act is satisfied, the landlord will be entitled to an order evicting the tenant. This case is not governed by the principle of the decision in Raju Chetti v. Jagannathdas Govindas : (1949)2MLJ694 , which dealt with the case of a composite lease of a cinema theatre executed after the commencement of Madras Act XV of 1946 and which contained special provisions as regards payment of rent and made a special provision for re-entry in case of default.

2. As the order of the appellate authority is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the order it must be quashed. The application foreviction is therefore granted. The petitioner will have his costs of this application.

3. (Memo of costs will follow).


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