RAVAL & CO. versus K. C. RAMACHANDRAN & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 11-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
I 
l 
629 
I II 
RAVAL & CO. 
11 
.0 
:E; 
v. 
, 
K. C. RAMACHANDRAN & ORS. 
December 11. 1973 
[A.N. RAY, C.J., H.R. KHANNA, K.K. MATIIEW, A. AlAvlRISWAM! 
AND P.N. BHAGWATT, JJ.j 
· 
Tttmil Nadu Buildingt (Leau and R<nl Co/1/ro/) Act (IS of J 900). S. 4(1), ?-
Definition of .. landlord'' and .. t~nant" und~r -Appl,cability 
10 
controctuol 
ltnandtr and Sltl.luiory t~uauci~s-Ft:-ration of fair re11t-LonJ/ord h·~rMr- ~nit:kd 
to opp/y /ur fixation of folr rent tlltting suhsisttnce of COJI/ractua/ ttnanc;-
lnltrpre tar/an of sta!ut~s. 
· ConstitJJtio, of /Mia, Art. 141-Aud pr~c~dt'ttls-G~n~ta/ ohunalton.r in Suprmte 
Cuurl deciJiorr-BindinK tl(Jtu,·e of 
Erldtnu Act, 1972. & <. 92- Vttr/atiun in P<"•miJsion of ugister~ le= dud-
Ora/ tridnrce rrlatdutK l'tll ku/on barr~d. 
On lhe lcnants' appeal, the Full !lcnch of the Madrns High C"ourt held that the 
Act COntrols both contmctual und Sl:ttutory tenancies and II enables borh land-
lords and tenants to seck I he be""lit of lixalion of fair r<nt. 
There:~ftcr, ~e. matre~ 
<:irne up bdore a Sioltlo Judge of the High Court who applying the prOVISions ~~ 
the Act to I he facts of I he case held that the Act did not apply to the P"'mJSC:S .10
1 
qiJ<Siion. The Division IJench reversed this decision. In the nppeal by spcoa 
kav~ the tenants mainly contended th~t a landlord h;~S no right to apply for :.he 
h.aauory C'!f a fair rent nt a figure higher than the contr:~ctu:tl rent, where then: ' a5 
• •un. .. uoc eontrJc"t of !<nancy. 
Dismi>sioa the appeal, 
r . 
fiELD : (!>Cr majorily-Mathcw and Oh•s"-ati, JJ. Contm) 
The Pre.tnt Act which replaces lhc 1949 Act adopts a co~1pletcly new ";fJ"'::J" 
"!_it\ o .... o and provi<ks for every conlingcncy, iJ;.,i~1t~e "'t~~'is'b~':e ~~l~,a~cly 
a ... kn.lnl Tho provisions of U1e Aclshow that 
a ms 
be ~ ir both to the 
Pl~d on the basis that fJir rent wa• lobe ft.rd wluch wa~ 10 f • 
ts nc«<<d 
1
•n.Jior.ds u well QJ to the tenanls, and that_ only lhe poor~~ ci~~e~n~~ly for the 
Pt<>Cttt!OO. The assumplion lhat tho Act hke aJJ !".nt :u:ts. :f.. Acl 
It u clear 
r~IOQ Of tellOIDis Js not Warrant«! by tbe prOVISIOnS of hie during lhe COfllrJCt 
<fort, tha1 lhe fair rent under lhe present Acl !' pay~ C Fj 
i'trtOd .u "<If as afr<r the expiry of the conlract pcnod. [63~ -
c 
I 
r 
II 
The 
· 
5Chc ,e of its own and it is intended 
10 
~nalysis of the A <I sh?wl that_ 11 hft,a h · ,"lrJclual tan:mcc.:s.. the detini-
. Pro\oJ<le a compl<le code rn respc.;t o 
1 co 1 
h Act , p lies lo contractual 
:!;:: o_f the term "landJonJ" and '"tenant" show th;Jt 1 ~heir ~tdlonls.. On some 
JICIOI "' well as to Citses of statutory l<nants and nnol be urauC\1 that such 
~f'J<ccl l!l'll<rul principles aovcmcng all R~nt ~:n•:he Act dearly Jays dowa that 
bol iOn can only be for I he benefit of the ten'!nts. 10 
f C • 
t 
A dose ~dmg of 
Ill. h J~oolords and lenunls can apply for lu~ro~~.J"~~r :."n~ ·it is payable by who-
-:u:t•howa that Ute fair rent is ti.xcd for 1 e 
1 
tenant 
What is fixed 
f:<' 1$ lb,: lcn<~nt whether a coolra<lual tenanl or 
1
•1·~~10:/ who opplies for fix a I ion 
.,.~!he fair "'at payable by the •~na.nr or to tll<h. an ,.r~ an incident of the tenure 
'-".rent bur fair rent for the bu•ldmJ so met 101 1 
'•&ardmc the buildine. [637FJ 
;-;; 
630 
SUPREME COURT Ri>PORTS 
[1974] 2 s.c.R. 
The general observations to the contrary in Bhai)'D Punja/e~l Bhac>rancfd;n v 
Dave Bha_rrNat 
Pra~lmprasad (1963)3 S.C.R. 312 nnd Manuj~nclra v. Purtnd,; 
Ptosad [1967] 1 S.C.R. 475, held obrter. 
Sri Brij Raj Krishna v. S. K. Shaw and Bros. [19511 S.C.R. 145, Hem Chand 
v. Sham D~vl, !.L.R. ( 1955] Punj, 36, R. Kris/mamttrtlly v. Parthasarath.•• A.I.R. 
19~9 M1d. 780, dis,inguished. 
Abb:ultal's case ( 19641 S S.C.R. 157 and Mangift1l v. Sngar~flallll Rat hi [1964] 
S S.C.R, 239, referred to. 
P~r l>fathew and Dhagwati, JJ : Two basic 
consi.<lcrations 
must 
guide 
O:Jr :lpj>:O~Ch to th: q~:stjon wh:ther a landlord can, durmg the sub;istcnce Of the 
c~3tractt1llt:'lli\Cf apply ror fi<ation or fair rent under section 4(t) of the Act 
Tn: fi:n i; thu th:'lg.-::j r~nt w:-tich is th: result of contract b:twccn the parli~ 
mJit cJ~tinu: to bind th:m so long as th: contract sub;ists, unless there is ~ny. 
thing in th: statute which expressly or by nCCC".ssary implicarion over-rides the con. 
tra~t. It is to cJunteract th: inju>ricc resulting from inequality in bargaining (lOwer 
~3d t3 b~ing abJut s~cial or disrrlburivcjustic.: that socinllesislalion 

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