Skip to content


A. Thiruvengadaswamy Naidu Vs. C.T. Nachiappan, Minor Through His Father and Guardian V.P.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1968)1MLJ145
AppellantA. Thiruvengadaswamy Naidu
RespondentC.T. Nachiappan, Minor Through His Father and Guardian V.P.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiar and anr.
Cases ReferredIn Shanmugham v. Satyanarayana Prasad I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....the learned district judge, madurai, confirmed that order. aggrieved by the order of the district judge, the tenant has come up in revision to this court.3. mr. a. sundaram aiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, contends that the application to bring on record the purchaser of the property as a party to the proceeding is not maintainable as the provisions of the civil procedure code are not applicable to rent control proceedings.4. in mohammad ibrahim v. rahiman khan : (1947)2mlj419 , this court held that an order of the rent controller directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of his house on the ground that the landlord desired to occupy the house himself was one for the personal benefit of the landlord, and was not capable of execution after the death of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T. Venakatadri, J.

1. The important question of law that arises in this Civil revision petition is whether a person who purchases the property during the pendency of an eviction proceeding for wilful default in the payment of rent can be impleaded as a party to the proceeding.

2. On the application by the vendee, the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, impleaded him as a party. In revision, the learned District Judge, Madurai, confirmed that order. Aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

3. Mr. A. Sundaram Aiyar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant, contends that the application to bring on record the purchaser of the property as a party to the proceeding is not maintainable as the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to rent control proceedings.

4. In Mohammad Ibrahim v. Rahiman Khan : (1947)2MLJ419 , this Court held that an order of the Rent Controller directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of his house on the ground that the landlord desired to occupy the house himself was one for the personal benefit of the landlord, and was not capable of execution after the death of the landlord at the instance of his legal representatives. In Shah Dhanaraj Kantilal v. Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras (1949) 2 M.L.J. 28, a Bench of this Court observed that, after the death of a landlord, who had. applied for eviction on account of the tenant's default, the landlord's son was the landlord and it could not be said that the deceased landlord's son could not claim the benefit of the default which occurred during the lifetime of his father. In Shanmugham v. Satyanarayana Prasad I.L.R. (1964) Mad. 354 : (1964) 2 M.L.J. 96, Ramachardra Iyer, C.J., has observed, that, when a landlord obtains ah order for delivery of possession on the ground of demolition and reconstruction but sells the property, the order for eviction cannot be deemed to lapse, and the executing Court is bound to execute the order at the instance of the successor-in-interest of the landlord.

5. From the trend of opinion, it seems to me to be clear that whenever there is a personal need or requirement of the landlord such as owner's occupation, his legal representatives can continue the proceeding, and that if there is any right or interest involved in the property then his legal representatives or successor-in-interest are also entitled to continue the proceeding initiated by the landlord under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

6. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed but without costs.


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