IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.
Mahmood H.Y.
Versus
The Kerala Corporation Ltd.
Decided On : 04.10.1944
Rent Control Order - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Madras Rent Control Order, 1941 - Section 7-A, Section 7-B - The court discussed the termination of the original tenancy, the formation of fresh tenancies, and the rights of the tenant holding over under the Madras Rent Control Order, 1941. The court emphasized the tenant's entitlement to the benefits of the Rent Control Order and the landlord's lack of right to evict once the tenant exercised the option under the unamended House Rent Control Order.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought to recover possession and arrears of rent from the tenant. The tenant claimed entitlement under the Madras Rent Control Order, 1941, and raised subsidiary issues regarding electric charges and advance payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original lease had ended, fresh tenancies were formed for the upper floors, and the tenant holding over was entitled to the benefits of the Rent Control Order. The court dismissed the suit, emphasizing the landlord's lack of right to evict the tenant.
Issues: The issues included the termination of the original tenancy, formation of fresh tenancies, tenant's entitlement under the Rent Control Order, and the landlord's right to evict the tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the tenant's entitlement to the benefits of the Rent Control Order and the landlord's lack of right to evict once the tenant exercised the option under the unamended House Rent Control Order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit with costs in favor of the tenant.
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.
1. This is a simple case where the landlord seeks to recover from the tenant possession of certain premises taken on lease on 1st January, 1943, for one year on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 for the first three months and Rs. 320 for the remaining period. The plaintiff states that the defendants are in arrears of rent for the months of October, November, and December, 1943, amounting to Rs. 662-6-7. He also seeks to recover mesne profits at Rs. 320 a month from the date of the termination of the tenancy, viz., is January, 1944, upto the date of delivery of possession.
2. The defences raised are that even after 1st January, 1944, the defendants continued in possession of the ground floor of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 and that they are liable to pay rent only at this rate and further they that are entitled under the Madras Rent Control Order, 1941, to, continue in occupation till 1st March, 1945. Two subsidiary questions have also been raised, namely, that the plaintiff is liable to make good a sum of Rs. 191-7-0 which was collected from the defendants by the Electric Supply Corporation as charges for the supply of electric current from 1st April, 1942, to 31st December, 1942, and that the plaintiff should return the advance of Rs. 1,000 admittedly in his hands.
3. Whether on the termination of the suit tenancy a fresh tenancy arrangement came into existence with effect from 1st January, 1944, as regards the ground floor portion of the premises, is one of the questipns that arises for decision in this case, and the answer depends mainly on the documents that have been filed on both sides. The other important question is whether, even if it be held that there was no such fresh tenancy, the defendants could be treated as tenants holding over and thus entitled to the benefits of the House Rent Control Order; and this is a question of law.
4. The liability for the payment of the electric charges can be disposed of very shortly.
5. [His Lordship dealt with the evidence and after holding the defendants liable for the charges dealt with the plea as to the defendants claim for return of the advance and concluded]
6. The refundable balance will be Rs. 819-4-0 and not Rs. 826-12-0 as stated in the reply.
7. Even from the plaint, it will be seen that the premises in question bear three different municipal door numbers--121, 121-A and 121-B, Armenian Street, Madras. They represent the ground floor, the first floor and the top floor. The three floors were let to three different people in 1941 on rents of Rs. 125, Rs. 115 and Rs. 40 per mensem respectively. All the three together were taken on lease by the defendants during the year 1943 on a rent of Rs. 300 per mensem for the first three months and Rs. 320 per mensem for the remaining nine months, as stated already. The National Radio Company and one S.V.L. Aiyar were the sub-tenants under the defendants of the first floor and the top floor. When the year of tenancy was drawing to a close, fresh arrangements came to be considered and as early as 22nd October, 1943, the defendants informed the plaintiff that they wished to terminate the tenancy and asked him to adjust the rents for October, November and December, 1943, out of the advance of Rs. 1,000 in the plaintiffs hands. They, however, expressed a wish to continue the tenancy of the ground floor provided it was let out to them on a monthly rent of Rs. 75 with one months advance and one months notice on either side. The plaintiff wanted a rent of Rs. 100 for the ground floor and the assistance of the defendants to enter into separate and independent tenancies with the sub-tenants as regards the first floor and the top floor. Certain other conditions were also mentioned, but with these we are not now concerned. In his letter of the 10th December, 1943, the plaintiff wrote:
As regards the tenancy of the other two floors formerly in your possession, I write this to inform you that I am arranging their tenan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.