S.R. RADHAKRISHNAN AND ORS. versus NEELAMEGAM

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 987 · Decided: 31-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.R. RADHAKRISHNAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
NEELAMEGAM 
JULY 31, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921; Sections 3 and 9: 
Premises let out to tenant on lease on monthly rent for one year-Stipulation C 
as to construction of roof and other construction by tenant and its recovery 
by adjustment from rent-Sale of the property-Purchaser issuing notice for 
eviction-Tenant transferred possession and business to his brothers-Pending 
eviction petition tenant filed an application for purchase of tenanted premises 
under Section 9 of the Act-Dismissed by the Trial Court-Reversed by the D 
Appellate Court-High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court-On appeal, 
Held, since the premises was not taken by the tenant in the capacity of luirta 
of the Joint Hindu family and that his father was alive, he could not claim 
himself to be the karta-Hence, his plea of transferring the right to his brother 
not sustainable-Since landlord is not bound by the recitals contained in the 
release deed transferring tenancy rights and possession to his brothers, and E 
in the absence of rent receipts, they could not acquire right of tenancy in the 
premises-When the tenant was not in possession of the tenanted premises, he 
ceased to be a tenant-Hence had no right to file application under Section 
9 read with Section 3-1nterpretation of Statutes. 
Words and Phrases: 
F 
'liberal interpretation '-Meaning of 
Appellant-tenant had taken the suit premises on monthly rent for a 
period of one year vide a registered lease deed. Later, the property was G 
purchased by the respondent, who had served a notice to the tenant for 
delivery of possession and had filed eviction petition thereafter. In the 
meanwhile, the tenant had transferred the possession as well as his printing 
business, running on the suit premises, to his brothers and filed an 
application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection 
987 
H 
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Act offering to purchase the suit premises. Trial Court dismissed the 
application. But First Appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that 
brothers of tenant acquired tenancy right in the suit premises by virtue 
of the release deed. Aggrieved, landlord filed an appeal which was allowed 
by the High Court. Hence the present appeal by the tenant and his 
brothers. 
B 
It was contended for the appellants that actual possession of the 
premises was not necessary for claiming privilege conferred under Section 
9 of the Act; that since the premises was taken by the appellant in the 
capacity of karta of the Joint Hindu family, tenancy rights could be 
C transferred and enjoyed by the brothers of the appellant; and that since 
the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation for tenants, it should be construed 
liberally in their favour. 
D 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the tenant had 
not paid any rent in respect of the suit premises. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The plea of the respondent that the premises was taken 
on rent by the appellant-tenant as joint family manager alone does not 
E make out a case that the tenancy was on behalf of the joint family. The 
plea cannot stand scrutiny in view of the admitted fact that the father of 
the defendants was alive at the time of tenancy and if at all the tenancy 
was to be in favour of the Joint Hindu Family, it was the father of the 
defendants who could have taken the premises on rent as manager/karta 
of the Joint Hindu Family. The lease deed shows that the name of the 
F tenant was mentioned in his individual capacity and not as a member/karta 
of Joint Hindu Family. Besides, he had never made any such suggestion 
earlier. [992-D-F[ 
1.2. The release deed which is relied upon by the appellants for the 
purpose of assignment of tenancy right has no mention whatsoever about 
G the tenancy rights released by appellant No. I in favour of other appellants, 
the brothers. Besides, there is no proof of payment of rent by appellants 
2 and 3 with respect to the suit premises, to the landlord. There is no rent 
receipt in their favour. The landlord is not a party to the release deed. 
He is not bound by any recitals contained in the release deed. Further it 
I-I is settled law that one docs not become tenant by mere payment of rent 
S.R. RADHAKRISHNAN v. NEELAMEGAM 
989 
even if that be so. Simply because appellants 2 and 3 contin

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