K. BALAKRISHNA RAO AND ORS. versus HAZI ABDULLA SAIT AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 875 · Decided: 10-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

875 
K. BALAKRISHNA RAO AND ORS. 
v. 
HAZI ABDULLA SAIT AND 0RS. 
October 10, 1979 
[A. C. GUPTA AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
,f 
Tiu: Ta111il Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Co11trol) Act 1960 as a1nended 
' 
by tl1e A mending Act of 1964-S. 30(iii)-Scope of. 
In July, 1940 the plaintiff's father leased out the building of which he was 
the owner, to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 950 for running a res-
taurant. 
Even after the expiry of the period of lease in July, 1943 the 
defendant continued to be in possession of the, building. By virtue of 
the 
Madras Non-residential Buildings Rent Control Order, 1946 the defendant be-
came a statutory tenant and under the Order fair rent was fixed at Rs. 1680 
p.m. 
In 1949 the 1946-0rder was replaced by the Madras Buildings (Lease 
and Rent Control) Act, 1949. On the death of his father in 1955 the plaintiff 
became the o\vner of the building. 
The 1949 Act was repealed and replaced by the Tamil Nadu Buildings 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (the Principal Act). Section 30(iii) of 
the Principal Act provided that it was not applicable to non-residential buildings, 
the rental value of which, according to the assessment of the Corporation of 
Madras, exceeded Rs. 400 p.m. 
Even so the defendant continued to be in 
possession of the building. Since the building was not governed by the Principal 
Act. the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant to quit and instituted a civil suit 
in the City Civil Court on March 2, 1964 for eviction and damages. 
In the meantime in June, 1964, by an amendment Act, the exemption con-
tained in s. 30 of the Principal Act iti respect of non-residential buildings \Vas 
withdrawn so that from ·tlien on non-residential buildings with a monthly rent 
of Rs. 400/- and above were ·also governed by the Principal Act. 
Sec:ion 3 
of the Amending Act also provided that proceedings for eviction of the tenants 
of such non-residential buildings instituted in civil courts should be treated as 
having abated. 
In view of the am·endment in December 1964 the City Civil Court dis-missed 
the plaintiff's suit as having abated. Thereupon the plaintiff filed an application 
under O. IX, r. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to .set aside its order dismissing 
the suit as having abated. 
This application was 
allowed. 
The defendants 
filed additional written statements in the City Civil Court raising the plea that 
the suit had actually abated by Virtue 'of s. 3 of the Amending Act. 
In the 
ineantime as a result of the plaintiff's application under s. 24, Code of Civil 
Procedure the High Court withdrew the suit to its file (On the death of the 
original defandant, defendants 2 to 10 were impleadcd as his legal represen-
tatives). 
On the issue whether the suit had abated on June 10, 1964 by virtue of s. 3 
of the Amending Act the trial judge of the High Court refused to record a 
finding and disposed- of the suit as if it was a fresh suit after the dealh of the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.A 
B 
, 
D 
·E 
F 
G 
H 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 
original defendant. He passed a decree for possession and dan1ages· for use and 
oc.cupation. 
On appeal by the defendants the Division Bench of the High Court held 
that from March I, 1964 the original defendant was a trespasser, that he was 
not entitled to the benefit of the Principal Act, that with the coming into force 
of the Ameriding Act the building itself was outside the scope of the Principal 
Act, that s. 3 of the Amending Act did not apply to the suit and so it did not 
abate on June 30, 1964 and that on the death of th'e original defendant, defen-
dants 2 to 10 were not entitled to the protection against eviction under the 
Principal Act as amended in 1973. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : Section 3 of the Amending Act was applicable to the suit as it was 
a proceeding instituted in the City Civil Court on the ground that the building 
was exempt from the provisions of the Principal Act by virtue of s. 30(iii) 
thereof although no express allegation was made in the plaint to that effect. 
[891 Bl 
1. (a) The vie"' of the Division Be~ch that s. 3 of tQe Amending Act was 
not applicable to this case Was erroneous in the absence of a contention by the 
plaintiff that s. 3-was unconstitutional. It was not for the court to ask whether 
there was any justification for the legislature to make a contrary provision in 
respect of the suits of the present nature. There was every 
justification for 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.