Skip to content


Nagoor Rowthar Vs. Akbar Alisha Sathguru Samiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in24Ind.Cas.722
AppellantNagoor Rowthar
RespondentAkbar Alisha Sathguru Samiar
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - extent of holding diminished by acquisition under land acquisition act--tenant entitled to reduction of rent if landlord gives no lands in exchange--land acquisition act (i of 1894), sections 31, 32. - .....prior to the period for which rent is now sued for a portion of this land was acquired under the land acquisition act. the compensation amount was deposited in court under sections 31 and 32 of that act and still remains in deposit, no land having been purchased therewith for assignment in lieu of that acquired.2. it appears to mo that petitioner is clearly entitled to a reduction of rent proportionate to the value of the property acquired.3. the award of the land acquisition officer (exhibit iv) shows that the owner of the land acquired is the mosque, and whatever right as a tenant petitioner might possess in the land to be assigned in exchange, it is clear both from this order and from exhibit i that the re-letting of that land rested with plaintiff, and not with him. it does not.....
Judgment:

Ayling, J.

1. The suit land is a religious inam land belonging to a mosque of,, which respondent (plaintiff) is manager, and leased by him on a perpetual cowle. It is admitted that prior to the period for which rent is now sued for a portion of this land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation amount was deposited in Court under Sections 31 and 32 of that Act and still remains in deposit, no land having been purchased therewith for assignment in lieu of that acquired.

2. It appears to mo that petitioner is clearly entitled to a reduction of rent proportionate to the value of the property acquired.

3. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer (Exhibit IV) shows that the owner of the land acquired is the mosque, and whatever right as a tenant petitioner might possess in the land to be assigned in exchange, it is clear both from this order and from Exhibit I that the re-letting of that land rested with plaintiff, and not with him. It does not appear that plaintiff has taken any steps in the matter : certainly it is not suggested 'that he has procured the allotment of any such land during the period for which rent is claimed.

4. The rent claimed, in the plaint must be reduced in proportion to the value of the land taken up under the Land Acquisition Act. The lower Court will determine the amount of the reduction, and pass an amended decree in place of the one already passed, which is hereby set aside.

5. Cost will be provided for in the ultimate decree.


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