ORDER:- The only question of law that has been argued in this batch of Civil Revision Petitions is whether a notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required before taking action under one or the other of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The facts which are common and which are not agitated before me need not be adverted to. But the question has arisen in all these cases whether a notice of termination of tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act is required at all before a petition could be presented to the statutory authority under the Buildings Act for obtaining relief under the various provisions of the Act.

2. There is abundance of case law on this subject and at one time they are perplexing and apparently contradictory as well. I shall now trace the various decided cases to find whether in the view of the Supreme Court as laid down by them and reiterated by them later the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act still would hold the field and should be looked into for purpose of observance of some of its prescriptions before an application under the Buildings Act could be filed. I may at once state that having regard to the declared law of the Supreme Court such an invocation of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act including that prescription in Section 106 of it may not be necessary at all. The earliest ruling on the question is the decision of a Division Bench of our Court in Krishnamoorthy v. Parthasarathy, AIR 1949 Mad 780. There the learned Judges said that no notice determining the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter for convenience called notice) was necessary before a landlord attempts to seek some relief under the special enactment, namely, the Tamil Nadu Buildings Act. This view was approved by another Division Bench of our Court in George Oakes Ltd. v. The Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras, 1952-1 Mad LJ 317 = (AIR 1951 Mad 222) but a controversy arose in 1966. In that case the subject-matter was as to what ought to be the fair rent of the demised premises. But in view of the contentions of counsel therein a Full Bench was constituted and our Court in M/s. Royal and Co. v. Ramachandran, 1966-2 Mad LJ 68 = (AIR 1967 Mad 57) (FB), on the question whether a notice is required before action is taken under this Special Act, was considered alongside with the main dispute in that case which related to the fixation of fair rent. The Full Bench again approved the ratio in Krishnamoorthy v. Parthasarathy, AIR 1949 Mad 780 and held that no such notice was necessary.

3. Whilst this was ruling the field, a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manujendra Dutt v. P.P. Roy Chowdhury, 1967-1 Mad LJ (SC) 61 = (AIR 1967 SC 1419) made certain observations touching upon the matter in issue before me namely, whether a notice was necessary at all before taking action under the Rent Act. That was a case which arose under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. While considering the provisions of that Act in juxtaposition to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court would not agree with the decision of our Court which held the field till 1966, the basis of all which was the ruling in R. Krishnamoorthy v. Parthasarathy, AIR 1949 Mad 780. There is undoubtedly an observation in Manujendra Dutt v. P.P. Roy Chowdhury, 1967-1 Mad LJ (SC) 61 = (AIR 1967 SC 1419) to the effect that the decision in R. Krishnamoorthy v. Parthasarathy, AIR 1949 Mad 780 cannot be said to be correctly laying down the principle in so far as the issuance of a notice under Section 16 of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned. Naturally, therefore, a Division Bench of our Court which decided cases under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act followed the above decision of the Supreme Court in Manujendra Dutt v. P.P. Roy Chowdhury, 1967-1 Mad LJ (SC) 61 = (AIR 1967 SC 1419) and held t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document