1976 Supreme(Mad) 345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. R. Gokulakrishnan, J.
R. D. Shawani …..Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s. Mahaveer Banians Stores and others .. …..Respondent(s)
C.R.P.No. 3336 of 1975.
Decided On : 09 July 1976
K.N. Balasubramanian, for Respondents.
Substituted service by publication in news paper.
Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Section 10 (3) (c)-Petition for setting aside ex-parte decree-Held, service of summons on defendant not effected personally.
2. The Rent Controller, after elaborately discussing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the respondents herein are tenants under the petitioner, that the tenancy is a monthly one, that the termination of the tenancy is valid that the requirement of the petitioner of the portion for additional accommodation is bona fide and that the respondents must vacate and deliver vacant possession of the portion to the petitioner. The Rent Controller gave a month’s notice for vacating and delivering vacant possession to the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the respondents preferred an appeal to the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, who is the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority the respondents filed an affidavit stating that as per G.O. Ms. No. 1998, dated 12th August, 1974 the building in question has been exempted from the Rent Control Act and that as such the eviction proceeding must stand dismissed. Along with the said affidavit the respondents also filed documents to prove that the building in question is a Muslim trust property. The petitioner filed a counter before the Appellate Authority stating that the case trust property is a belated one, that the suit premises is not affected by the said Government Order, that the respondents cannot get any benefit under the said Government Order, that the petitioner is entitled to pursue the appeal and execute the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and that in any event the Government Order will not affect the appeal before the Appellate Authority.
4. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, observing that in view of the Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Government on 21st August, 1974 exempting the building from the operation of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the eviction petition was not maintainable. Nevertheless the Appellate Authority upheld the finding of bona fide requirement of the petitioner for additional accommodation.
5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the landlord has preferred the above revision petition.
6. Thiru Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, contended that the petitioner filed the eviction p