Skip to content


Brithichand Sowcar Vs. Fatima Bi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1936Mad954
AppellantBrithichand Sowcar
RespondentFatima Bi
Excerpt:
- - 2. so far as the superstructure is concerned, the mortgagee (petitioner) derived title from the tenant and the tenant having left the land as well as the building the mortgagee is continuing in possession of the land itself......act. the original tenant was occupying the land only and, as i understand it, erected on the land a superstructure which covered the entire land; then he was the occupier of the land and the superstructure. he mortgaged to the petitioner in this revision petition the superstructure alone, and either the mortgagee or some person deriving title from him is now the occupier of that superstructure and in fact also must be the occupier of the land. section 2(a) of the act to which i have referred defines 'land' and says: ' land' does not include buildings.' on behalf of the petitioner it has been argued before me that since the mortgagee was only the mortgagee of the superstructure and not of the land, this act does not apply, and that the learned judge in the lower court should not.....
Judgment:

Gentle, J.

1. This is an appeal by way of a Civil Revision Petition against the decision of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in which he fixed the rent payable by the person who is occupying the superstructure erected on a piece of land. The application before him was made under S. V, Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. The original tenant was occupying the land only and, as I understand it, erected on the land a superstructure which covered the entire land; then he was the occupier of the land and the superstructure. He mortgaged to the petitioner in this revision petition the superstructure alone, and either the mortgagee or some person deriving title from him is now the occupier of that superstructure and in fact also must be the occupier of the land. Section 2(a) of the Act to which I have referred defines 'land' and says: ' Land' does not include buildings.' On behalf of the petitioner it has been argued before me that since the mortgagee was only the mortgagee of the superstructure and not of the land, this Act does not apply, and that the learned Judge in the lower Court should not have made the order which he made and in doing so exercised jurisdiction not vested in him. At first I was impressed by this argument; but on being referred to Section 2(4), I find

'tenant' means tenant of land liable to pay rent on it, every other person deriving title from him and includes persons who continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy.

2. So far as the superstructure is concerned, the mortgagee (petitioner) derived title from the tenant and the tenant having left the land as well as the building the mortgagee is continuing in possession of the land itself. The application was put in to fix the rent of the land. In my view the learned Judge in the Court below was quite right. No question as to the amount of rent fixed arises and the result is this petition is dismissed with costs.


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