Skip to content


V. Bichawa Vs. M. Venkatesan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1979)2MLJ334
AppellantV. Bichawa
RespondentM. Venkatesan
Cases ReferredShanmugha Appah v. Abdul Hameed
Excerpt:
- .....or on behalf of any other person or on behalf of themselves or others, may in a sense be receiving rent on behalf of others as agents, that class of persons is not excluded under section 10(8) of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960. in another case, syed ibrahim v. sudarsanam and ors. (1972) t.l.n.j. 259 the same learned judge expressed as follows:section 10(8) provides that the landlord who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall not be entitled to apply for eviction of a tenant without the previous written consent of the landlord .... section 19(1) specifically provides that there could be no eviction except in accordance with the provisions of sections 10 and 14 to 16. therefore, the eviction.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In Shanmugha Appah v. Abdul Hameed : AIR1974Mad133 Kailasam, J. (as he then was), took the view that, though persons, who receive rent on their own account or on behalf of any other person or on behalf of themselves or others, may in a sense be receiving rent on behalf of others as agents, that class of persons is not excluded under Section 10(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In another case, Syed Ibrahim v. Sudarsanam and Ors. (1972) T.L.N.J. 259 the same learned Judge expressed as follows:

Section 10(8) provides that the landlord who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall not be entitled to apply for eviction of a tenant without the previous written consent of the landlord .... Section 19(1) specifically provides that there could be no eviction except in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10 and 14 to 16. Therefore, the eviction motioned in Section 10(8) cannot be confined to evictions under Section 10 alone, but also to evictions under Sections 14 to 16.

2. In the instant case what has been brought out on record appears to be that the petitioner has to be classified as a person who was receiving rent on behalf of another, and though, in a sense, he might be called an agent, that class of persons, according to the decisions in Shanmugha Appah v. Abdul Hameed : AIR1974Mad133 is not excluded under Section 10(8) of the Act. Again it is doubtful whether the non obstante Clause in Section 10(8) would also be applicable to applications filed under Sections 14 to 16 of the Act. The argument of learned Counsel for the respondent is that, as Section 10(1) provides that there could be no eviction except in accordance with the provisions of Sections 14 to 16 of the Act, the impact of Section 10(8) should also be visited on applications under Sections 14 to 16 of the Act. I am unable to agree with this contention of learned Counsel for the respondent. But, as there is the judgment of a single Judge of this Court, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench for a final decision. Post accordingly.

The Order off the Court was pronounced by


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