P. J. GUPTA & CO. versus K. VENKATESAN MERCHANT & ORS

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 11-10-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
P. J. GUPTA & CO., 
'· 
K. VENKATESAN MERCHANT & ORS 
October, 11, 1974 
[M. H. BEG AND V. R. KRt~lINA IYER, JJ.j 
401 
Madras Buildings (Lease:& Rent Control) Act, 1960 s. 10(2)(ir)(a)-Scope of. 
The appellants obtained a lease of non-residential premises at Rs. 450 p,m. in 
1944 and sub-let parts of the premises in 1957. The Madras Buildings (Lease & 
Rent Control) Act, 1949 did not contain any provision prohibiting sub-Jetting. The 
1949 Act was repealed and replaced by the Madras Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) 
Act, 1960 s. !0(2)(ii)(a) of which enacts that the landlord can evict a tenant on the 
ground that the tenant bas. after t~e ~3rd October, 1945, without the written con-
sent of the landlord transferred bts ngbt 
under the lease or sub-let the entire 
building or any portion thereof, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do 
so. In 1964 the respondent purchased t~e premises and thereaf~ filed an application 
under s. 10(2) (ii) (a) of the Act to evict the a.p~ellant and bis sub-tenants. 
The 
City Rent Controller passed an order of eviction. The Court of !mall Causes 
allowed the tenant's appeal holding that in a contractual tenancy the provisions of 
the Transfer of Property Act applied to the exclusion of the remedies provided under 
the Act. The High Court revised this decision. 
On appeal to this Court it was contended that the rights of the parties were 
governed by the provisions of the Act as they stood In 1960 and so the appeJJant 
was protected from evicti.on under the provisions of cl (iii) of s. 30 of the Act. 
Under cl. (iii) of !i. 30 as it originally stood If the rental value of a non-resi· 
dential building as entered in the property tax assessment book of the municipality 
exceeded Rs. 400/· per month the.landlord would have no right to proceed against 
the tenant for eviction under s. 10(2)(il')(a) of the Act. This section was amended by 
s. 3 of the Amending Act XI of 1964 which states that a proceeding instituted on 
the ground that such building or part was exempt from the provisions of the principal 
Act. shall abate in so far as the proceeding relates to such building or pait and that the 
rights and privileges which may have accrued before such date to any landlord in 
respect of a non-residential building by virtue of cl. (fu') of s. 30 of the principal 
Act would not be enforceable; 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (1) The special procedure provided by the Act displaces the requirements 
of the procedure for eviction und'er the Transfer of Property Act and by an ordinary 
civil suit. The provisions of. the Act must necessarily apply to all ·tenancie11. A 
tenancy is essentially based on and governed by ail agreement or contract even when 
a statute intervene11 to limit the area within which an agreement.or contract opera. 
tes 
or, subjects contractual rights, to statut9ry rights and obligations. In tho 
ins'tant case the sub-letting was subsequent to 194S. The sub-letting of 1957 would 
be covered bys. 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. [403 F·H] 
M/s. Raval & Co. v. JC. C. Pamaehandran & Or8. A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 818 @ 823 , 
referred to. 
(2) Section 3 of the Amending ,6.ct applies to (i) cases In which a prqceedjng has 
been instituted "on the ground" that a non-residential building was elrempffrom 
the provisions of the principal Act by virtue of cl. (Iii') of s. 30 of the i>rincipal Act 
and is pending; and (ii) to cases where rights and privileges which may have accrued 
before such date to any landlord in respect of non-re!idential building by virtue of 
cl. (iii) of s. 30 of the principal Act exist. In the kind of cases falling in the fine 
category the amendment says that the pending Proceedings shall abate. As rel!IU'dl 
the second kind of case, the amendment says that the rights and privileges of th: 
landlord shall cease and determine and shall not be enfon:cable. [40S B-D] 
In the instant case proceedinp under s. (lOXl)(il} (a.) could not fall under the 
first category nor are the "riahts and privileaes" under the second cateSorJ involved 
Whatever rights the landlotd bad acquin!d w- due to Ibo omission of cl. (ikj ~ 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 S.C:.R· 
s. 30 of the Act by the Amending Act 1964 only. Prior to the amendment the effect 
A 
of s. 30(ili) was that the landlord had no right to proceed under s. 10(2) (ii) (a) of the 
Act because of the nature .o~ the preJOis:es let and its monthly rent and after the 
amendment the landlord acqurr

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