Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NAINAR SUNDARAM & THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D T. SOMASUNDARAM
Vincent Poobalarayar
Versus
The Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tuticorin & Others
Writ Appeal No.584 of 1990
Decided On :Decided On : 09-07-1990
Appellate Authority - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - The court held that the inhibition with reference to filing of an appeal under S. 18(2) of the Act would apply only to an order passed under S. 18(1) of the Act directing delivery in execution of the enumerated orders under S. 18(1) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The question arose regarding the shirk on the part of the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to exercise jurisdiction as the appellate authority to examine the propriety of an order declining to order re-delivery in execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a warrant to follow the pronouncement of a Bench of this court and dismissed the writ appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge remitting the matter to the appellate authority for consideration of the matter in accordance with law.
Issues: The issue was the jurisdiction of the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to examine the propriety of an order declining to order re-delivery in execution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inhibition with reference to filing of an appeal under S. 18(2) of the Act would apply only to an order passed under S. 18(1) of the Act directing delivery in execution of the enumerated orders under S. 18(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge remitting the matter to the appellate authority for consideration of the matter in accordance with law, is dismissed. No costs.
NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.
1. The question arose before the learned single Judge as to the shirk on the part of the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to exercise the jurisdiction as the appellate authority to examine the propriety of an order passed by the controller under the Act, declining to order re-delivery in execution at the instance of the third respondent in this writ appeal. The learned single Judge found a warrant to follow the pronouncement of a Bench of this court in Fathima Automobiles v. P.K.P. Nair 1 to hold that the inhibition with reference to filing of an appeal set out under S. 18(2) of the Act would apply only to an order passed under S. 18(1) of the Act directing delivery in execution, of the enumerated orders under S. 18(1) of the Act. We have been taken through the pronouncement of the bench of this court referred to above. We find a sound reason behind a ratio adopted by the bench. We have not found a warrant to take a view different from that of the bench of this court in the decision referred to above. Hence, this writ appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge remitting the matter to the appellate authority under the Act, the second respondent herein for consideration of the matter in accordance with law, is dismissed. No costs.
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
