JUDGMENT. — The landlord of property No. 1/75, Chellappa Mudali Street, Perambur Barracks, Madras is the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that one Ratnavel Chettiar, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein, took on lease the above property (land) belonging to the petitioner in or about 1935 and put up a construction in the said land prior to 1955. The petitioner’s further case is that when Rathnavel Chettiar was alive, he executed a fresh lease, Exhibit P-1, dated 9th March, 1960, in and by which Rathnavel Chettiar agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 75 per month against the original rent of Rs. 14 per month which was enhanced from time to time. Thereafter there were certain proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, between the petitioner and the successors-in-interest of the said Rathnavel Chettiar, and it is stated that in or about 1965, the respondents surrendered a portion of the land, and were prepared to pay a further increased rent of Rs. 100 per month for the remaining portion of the demised land, probably because, as already stated, Rathnavel Chettiar had already put up the superstructure and the respondents wanted to continue as tenants in the property, which is the subject-matter of these proceedings. The complaint of the petitioner is that in or about 1972 the respondents sublet the entire demised land, as well as the superstructure, to the 5th defendant in the ejectment suit filed by the petitioner herein. Coming to know of this the petitioner issued a notice Exhibit P-3, dated 13th March, 1972, terminating the tenancy of the respondents, in so far as the land was concerned, and asking the respondents to surrender possession. The respondents replied claiming benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act. The petitioner was therefore obliged to file the ejectment suit. In that suit the respondent filed an application under section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, claiming benefits under the said Act. The trial Court allowed their petition and granted them the benefits under section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras), who also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The appellate authority found that there was nothing to show that there had been a variation in the terms of the tenancy; secondly that there was nothing in the Act which prevented the tenant of a vacant land from subletting the land and that if he sublet the land, he would be disentitled to the benefits under the Act, and, thirdly, that the Act did not contemplate that the person, who continued to be a tenant of the land and who sought for the benefit under section 9 of the Act, should be in actual physical possession of the land. It is as against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

2. In paragraph 4 of the plaint filed under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, which initiated this (sic) discussion between the parties, it is stated as follows:

“After the death of Rathnavel Chettiar, the defendants 1 to 4 occupied the land, mentioned in the schedule below. Subsequently in proceedings in H.R.C. No. 2457 of 1965, the defendants 1 to 4 agreed to pay the land rent of Rs. 100 per month and also in pursuance of the consent order passed in the aforesaid H.R.C. proceedings a strip of 44’ X 5’ out of the schedule mentioned land was surrendered to the plaintiff”.

Learned counsel for the respondents concedes that there were such proceedings in 1965, that there was a surrender of a portion of the originally demised vacant land and that contemporaneously the rent was also increased to Rs. 100. Therefore the finding of the Court below that there was no evidence to show that there had been a variation in the terms of the tenancy appears to be incorrect. This aspect of the matter has to be further enquired into.

3. The legal contention of learned counsel for the landlord-pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document