LexLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA versus INDIA AUTOMOBILES AND CO. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. INDIA AUTOMOBILES AND CO. AND ORS. AUGUST 1, 1990 [S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act-Sections 4, JO( I), 10(2)(vii) and 19-Whether Rent Controller had jurisdiction to decide question of title. Two separate properties bearing Door Nos. 2 and 3 admeasuring 41 grounds and 2005 sq. ft., which originally formed part of an extent of land, situate at Mount Road, Madras belonged to several co-owners, who leased out the same to the Respondent, by two separate lease-deeds (Ex. P-1 and P-2}-item 1 and 2 in the Schedule A to the plaint. The property contained in Door No. 2 which comprised an area of 4 grounds and 151 sq. ft, with certain buildings was given on rent for Rs.150 p.m., whereas the property contained in Door No. 3 which also had some buildings thereon was let out for Rs.200 p.m. The owners sold the properties to the United India Life Assurance Co. and the New Guardian of India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in July 1953. In 1956, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the appellant stepped into the shoes of the said companies. The appellant moved two applica- tions before the Rent Controller for fixation of a 'fair rent' for each of· the premises; In respect of the property in Door No. 2, the rent claimed was Rs.2,399 ftl3 while in respect of the other, the rent claimed was Rs.3266/50p. The tenants claimed that, under both the lease deeds, what had been leased out to them was only a vacant land and since the . superstructure had been built by them, they were entitled to relief . under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. It was further con- &,· R C tended that the ent ontroller had no jurisdiction to fix a fair rent. The Rent Controller accepted the contention of the tenant so far as item No. 1 (property at Door No. 2) was concerned but with regard to the second property (Door No. 3), he fixed the fair rent at Rs.1451 p.m. There were then two appeals to the Court of Small Causes. The Small Causes Court came to the conclusion that the buildings on the land leased vi de P -1 had also been conveyed to the appellant and that the LI C was entitled to seek fixation of fair ren~ in respect of this pre- mises also. However the order of the Rent Controller in regard to the 545 A B c D E F G H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 3 S.C.R. A other property in Door No. 3 was upheld. However, in certain earlier proceedings for rixation of fair rent etc., it had been held by the Rent .. Controller that item No. (Door No. 2) belonged to the LIC, but his order of eviction had been set aside by the appellate court on some other ground. The Court of Small Causes did not treat that decision as res judicata. The tenants being aggrieved by the order of the Court of Small B Causes filed revision petitions but they were dismissed on 20.11.1968. The appellant thereupon filed Civil Suit against the tenants- respondents for recovery of arrears of rent together with interests etc. - 'l·· on the basis of the fair rent rixed. The respondents-tenants also filed a chil suit claiming protection under the Madras City Tenants' Protec- c tion Act but this suit and further appeals therefrom were dismissed. In the suit for recovery of rent filed by the appellant, the tenants con- tended that since the subject mattter of the lease under Ex. P-1 was only a vacant site, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to rix the fair rent '• in respect thereof and that, therefore, the claim in the suit for arrears of rent, based on the Rent Controller's order in respect of the premises D covered by Ex. P-1 had to fail. The trial Judge in the High Court came to the conclusion that Ex. P-1 did not, in law, create a valid lease between the co-owners and the tenants. He further held that the super- structure constructed on the land had been conveyed to the vendee under the sale deed dated 30.7.1953 and thus vested in LIC. On this reasoning the High Court held that the Rent Controllet had jurisdiction ;.;_. E to rix the fair rent in respect of the premises. The tenants filed an appepJ. The appellate Bench conrmned the decree in respect of Item 2 but as regards Item No. 1, the Appellate Bench vacated the decree passed by the trial Court. It held that there was a valid lease between the owners and the tenants under Exts. P-1 and P-2. The appellant Bench held that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to enterta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.