Back
Judges : RAMAN NAYAR
A.Appukuttan Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Thiruvadinatha Pillai - Respondent
Case No : S.A. No. 170 of 1958
Decided On : 03/27/1958
Advocates Appeared :
S. Narayanan Potti; N. K. Varkey; M. Gopalan Nair; For Appellant T.K. Narayana Pillai; D. Narayanan Potti; For Respondent
Eviction - Compensation for Improvements - The court executing the order for eviction does not have jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation for improvements under Clause.9 of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950. Gomathi Ammal v. Chinakannu Pillai (1954 K.L.T. 278) clarifies that neither the Controller nor the court executing the Controller's order for eviction can entertain the claim for compensation for improvements.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant tenant sought compensation for improvements in response to an order for eviction passed by the Controller under Clause.9 of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the executing court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation for improvements and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the executing court to entertain claim for compensation for improvements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court executing the order for eviction under Clause.11 cannot entertain any claim for compensation for improvements and must execute the order as if it were its own decree.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
1. The order for eviction passed by the Controller under Clause.9 of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, does not, and indeed cannot, adjudge any compensation for improvements in favour of the appellant tenant. The court executing that order for eviction under Clause.11 can only execute that order as if it were its own decree and has no jurisdiction to entertain any claim for such compensation. There is nothing in Gomathi Ammal v. Chinakannu Pillai (1954 K.L.T. 278) to support the appellant's contention that he can enforce his claim before the executing court on the other hand that decision makes it clear that neither the Controller nor the court executing the Controller's order for eviction can go into that question. The courts below should have disposed of the appellant's objection on this short ground instead of going into the merits of his claim.
I dismiss the appeal with costs. Dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
