LexSA. RAMACHANDRAN versus S. NEELAVATHY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SA. RAMACHANDRAN v. S. NEELAVATHY DECEMBER 20, 1996 (KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] Rent Control Laws: Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921: Section 3,9 and 11-Suit for Eviction-Tenant directed to be evicted-Right to object-Waiver of-Earlier the tenant filed application under Section 9-Ap- C plication rejected being beyond time-Separate application for condonation of delay in filing the application also rejected-Tenant unable to invoke Sec- tion 9-Application of the principle of waiver by the High Court against the tenant-Validity of-Held, requirements under Section 11 are in the nature of conditions precedent, their non-compliance will render suit liable to be dis- D missed at the threshold-Since the application was rejected being beyond time, tenant cannot be said to have waived his right to object to the imgularity or illegality in the institution of the suit: E Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section Bo-/ntent of-Explained vis-a-vis Section 11 of Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921. Appellant was a tenant on a plot owned by the respondent, A suit for eviction of. the appellant was field by the Respondent. 'The suit was dis- missed on the ground that it was instituted without first issuing notice to the appellant under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the respon- F dent. The second appeals was allowed by the High Court on the ground that the appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the Act by making an application that the property in dispute may be directed to be sold in his favour had waived his right to object to the institution of the suit without issuing a notice under Section 11 of the Act. G Earlier,the appellant had filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for a direction of the respondent to sell the property in question for a price to be fixed by the Court. As the application had been filed beyond time, he had filed a separate application for condonation of delay. This application for condonation was rejected by the Trial Court, the Civil H Revision against which was dismissed by the High Court. The result was 870 ,_ S.A RAMACHANDRAN v. S. NEELA VA1HY 871 that the appellant could not invoke Section 9 of the Act. In appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was contended that the appellant was not permitted by the Court to· invoke Section 9 as his application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Trial Court and the Triai Court's judgment was upheld by the High Court. The High Court, therefore, was in error in invoking the principle of waiver. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the appellant had preferred to take advantage of the institution of the suit and had made an application under Section 9 of the Act (though beyond time) and, therefore, A B he could not invoke Section 11 and contend that the suit was not main- C tainable for want of notice. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1 Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921 provides that no suit for ejectment shall be instituted against the D tenant without first giving him a notice, in writing. Another prohibition is that the suit shall not be instituted until the expiration of three months next after notice in writing has been given to the tenant. It is obvious that if a suit / is instituted without giving notice or if a notice is given but the suit filed before the expiry of three months, it would be in violition of the prohibitions E set-out in Section 11 and sUch a suit cannot proceed. [877-A-D] 1.2 The prohibitions set out in the Section work against the plaintiff. They also create a right in favour of the tenant so that he may not be directly drawn into litigation before a court. If an opportunity is given to him to surrender possession with the offer that he would be duly compen- F sated for the building and the trees and the amount of compensation is · also disclosed to him, he may, during the period of three months, before the expiry of which the suit cannot be instituted, consider the offer and decide whether to litigate with the landlord or quit. If he decides to contest the suit, he gets another opportunity under Section 9 by making an G application to the Court for a direction to the landlord to sell the property in his favour for a price which may be fixed by the Court. [877-E-G] 2.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.