Back
Madras High Court
RAMAPRASADA RAO
K.R.Suraswathi - Appellant
Versus
V.Vadivelu Chettiar - Respondent
Decided On : 12/13/1966
MADRAS BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960 - SECTION 10(3)(A)(III) - INTERPRETATION - REQUIREMENT OF PREMISES BY LANDLORD'S HUSBAND - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION - LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM 'LANDLORD' - WIFE'S RIGHT TO SEEK POSSESSION FOR HUSBAND'S BUSINESS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landlady, filed an application for possession of her premises on the ground that it was required for the business carried on by her husband. The respondent-tenant contended that the requirement was not bona fide and that the application was not maintainable as the premises was only required by the landlady's husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the word 'landlord' in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 should be interpreted liberally to include a dependent or a near relative. The court further held that the addition of the word 'son' in the amended provision did not militate against the adoption of a reasonable and beneficial construction of the word 'landlord'.
Issues: 1. Whether the word 'landlord' in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 should be interpreted liberally to include a dependent or a near relative? 2. Whether the addition of the word 'son' in the amended provision militates against the adoption of a reasonable and beneficial construction of the word 'landlord'?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the word 'landlord' in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 should be interpreted liberally to include a dependent or a near relative based on the following grounds: - The purpose of the Act is to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants and to regulate the letting of residential and non-residential buildings. - The Act has been held to be a reasonable restriction of the vested rights of landlords in the interests of the community at large. - The addition of the word 'son' in the amended provision was intended to specifically include sons as persons who could assert themselves to the benefits of the new section. - Excluding other dependents from obtaining such benefit would lead to an unreasonable restriction in the matter of enjoyment of property by landlords. 2. The court held that the addition of the word 'son' in the amended provision did not militate against the adoption of a reasonable and beneficial construction of the word 'landlord' based on the following grounds: - The Legislature's intention was to include a wider class of persons who could assert themselves to the benefits of the new section. - A beneficial construction of the Act would include a request by a landlady for being put in possession of her building for the use and occupation by her husband for his business.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the judgment of the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, and restored the judgment of the Rent Controller. The tenant was given six months' time for surrendering possession of the premises to the petitioner.
2. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to maintain her application as she is the landlady and that the word "landlady" or ' landlord' in Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) would include a dependent or a near relative. The appellate Court however held with some hesitancy that the words "landlord or his son" appearing in the new Act are likely to indicate that the requirement must be for the use of the landlord or his son and for the use of no other person. The main question for determination is whether the amending Act 18 of 1960 has in fact made any deliberate change in the law as it existed before. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Act 18 of 1960 reads as follows :-
"Section 10(3)(a)(iii). - A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.
.... (iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or his son is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or his son is carrying on a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own."
Section 7(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (Act XXV of 1949) reads as follows :-
"7(3)(a) A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, ..... .
(iii) in case it is any other non-residential building if the landlord is not occupying for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise."
The only conspicuous change effected in the provision under consideration is, what was landlord" in S. 7(3)(a)(iii) in Act XXV of 1949 has been changed to "landlord or his son" in Act 18 of 1960. Of course, the latter portion of S. 7(3)(a)(iii) of Act XXV of 1949 has been omitted and the omission is not relevant for purposes of this case.
3. What exactly the word " landlord" in the old Act connoted was the subject-matter of two decisions of our High Court. In Kolandaivelu Chettiar v. Koolavana Chettiar, 1961-1 Mad LJ 184, Venkatadri, J. held that the word "landlord" cannot be intended or treated as rigid, but elastic. The learned Judge held that the word would include a dependant as well. This decision was rendered after the passing of the new Act 18 of 1960. Under Sec. 35 of the new Act, the earlier Act XXV of 1949, was repealed and the statute obligated that all deci
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
