Ismail, J. - These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of this Court on the original side, namely, in C.S. No. 218 of 1963. The former appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, while the latter appeal has been filed by the third defendant in the suit. Since both sides have preferred appeals, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as they have been arrayed in the suit. Admittedly the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. Equally admittedly the property was leased to one late Seetha-rama Rao under Exhibit P-1 dated 8th July, 1940 and the lease expired on 15th July, 1943, but late Seetharama Rao continued to be in possession as a tenant holding over. This was obviously because the Rent Control Orders and the legislations that were in force in this State gave protection to such persons from eviction. The legislation regarding control of rents started during the second world war. In the then Presidency of Madras the first two orders under the Defence of India Rules were issued as the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941 and the Madras Godown Rent Control Order, 1942. In 1945 these orders were re-issued with slight changes, as the Tamil Nadu House Rent Control Order, 1945 and the Tamil Nadu Non-residential Buildings Rent Control Order, 1945. They were replaced by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 which in turn was replaced by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. That Act also was replaced by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, which came into force on 30th September, 1960, and which is the Act now in force. The Act contained certain exemptions in section 30, according to which the Act did not apply to: —

“(i) any building the construction of which was, after the date of the commencement of this Act, completed and notified to the local authority concerned, or

(ii) any residential building the rental value of which, on the date of the commencement of this Act, as entered in the property tax assessment book of the municipal council district board, panchayat or panchayat union council or the corporation of Madras as the case may be, exceeds two hundred and fifty rupees per mensem, or

(iii) any non-residential building the rental value of which, on the date of the commencement of this Act, as entered in the property tax assessment book of the municipal council, district board, panchayat or panchayat union council or the corporation of Madras, as the case may be, exceeds four hundred rupees per mensem.”

Admittedly by virtue of the provision contained in this section in relation to nonresidential building, the Act did not apply to the suit building, since the rent for the building in question was Rs. 1,680. Section 30 of the Act was amended by the Tamil Nadu Act II of 1962, with regard to residential buildings. This amending Act replaced the original provision referred to above by the following:

“any residential building or part thereof occupied by any one tenant if the monthly rent paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeds two hundred and fifty, rupees”.:

With regard to non-residential buildings, the provision contained in the original section 30 was replaced by the following provision:

“any non-residential building or part thereof occupied by any one tenant if the monthly rent paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeds four hundred rupees”.

Even after the above amendment, the Act was inapplicable to the suit building. It is in this context that the plaintiff issued a notice marked as Exhibit P-2 in these proceedings on 20th January, 1964 terminating the tenancy of late Seetharama Rao with effect from the end of 29th February, 1964. This notice through lawyer informed late Seetharama Rao:

“You are put on notice that as and from the 1st March, 1964 the relationship between my client and you as landlord and tenant shall cease and determine and your occ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document