SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Mad) 356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.S. Kailasam, CJ. and V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.
N. Muthuswami Naidu .....Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras — 9 and another .....Respondent(s)
W.A. No. 131 of 1975 against W.P. No. 188 of 1975,
Decided On : 15 July 1976

Advocates:
M. Srinivasan, for R. Gopalaswami Iyengar, for Appellant.
The Government Pleader, for 1st Respondent.
V. Radhakrishnan, for 2nd Respondent.

Applicability of the G.O. exempting certain buildings.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Section 29-Validity of Government order regarding exemption of certain buildings.

       

Kailasam, CJ.- This appeal is filed by a tenant against the order of Ramanujam, J., dismissing his petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in G.O. Ms. No. 1998, Home dated 12tb August, 1974 and to quash the same.

2. The appellant is the tenant of shops bearing Door Nos. 100, 101, 101-A, B and E belonging to the second respondent, Sri Swami Nellaiappar Sri Kanthimathi Ambal Devasthanam, through its Executive Officer, Tirunelveli. The second respondent Devasthanam issued notices to certain tenants including the appellant terminating their tenancies and filed suits for eviction. It was the contention of the tenants that the impugned Government Order, G.O. Ms. No. 1998, Home dated 12th August, 1974, which was issued under section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960) exempting all buildings owned by the Hindu Christian and Muslim Religious Trusts and Charitable institutions from all the provisions of the Act, was not valid.

3. The contentions before the learned Judge were:

(i) The tenants of the buildings owned by the religious trusts and charitable institutions which have been exempted from the provisions of the Act have not been riven notice by the Government before exempting the same from the operations of the Act and as such the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice ;

(ii) The power of exemption has been exercised by the Government arbitrarily without taking into account the terms and conditions of the individual tenancies in relation to those buildings; and

(iii) The impugned Government order offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

The learned . Judge found against the appellant on all points and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal.

4. In the writ appeal, Mr. M. Srinivasan, the learned counsel, challenged the impugned Government Order mainly on one ground, namely, that section 29 of the Act does not empower the Government to exempt a class or classes of buildings on the basis of ownership namely. Hindu, Christian and Muslim Religious Trusts and Charitable Institutions.

The impugned Government Order runs as follows:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim Religious Trusts and Charitable Institutions from all the provisions of the said Act.”Section 29, under which the impugned Government Order was passed, provides as follows ;

“ Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the Government may, subject to such conditions as they deem fit, by notification, exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act.”

The submission of the learned counsel is that the power conferred on the Government is to exempt any building or class of buildings and that the exemption should be based on the building or class of buildings and not on the landlord or class of landlords or tenant or class of tenants.

5. Construing the words “ any building or class of buildings” as they stand the submission is not without substance. If the power is confined or has been understood to have been confined to a building or class of buildings, it is very difficult to resist the contention of the learned counsel. The object of the enactment is (1) to regulate the letting of residential and non-residential buildings, (2) to control rest of such buildings and (3) to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Tamil Nadu. The scope of the enactment comprises the regulation of the letting of residential and non-residential buildings, which would involve the controlling of the relationship between landlords and tenants, the control of rents and prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants.

6. The Supreme Court in construing the powers of the Government under section 13








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top