LexV. DHANAPAL CHETTIAR versus YESODAI AMMAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 334 V. DHANAP AL CHETTIAR v. YESODAI AMMAL August 23, 1979 [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. SARK'ARIA, N. L. UNTWALIA, P. N. SHINGHAL, P. S . .KAILASAM, 0. ClIINNAPPA REDDY AND E. S. VENKATARAMAIAH, JJ.] Rent Control Acts-Provide conditions for eviction of tenants-Notice under s. 106 1'ransf er of Property Act if necessary after decree for eviction 'passed -by Court. A lease between a lessor and a lessee comes into existence by way of con- tract when the parties to the contract agree on the rent, duration of tenancy and other relevant terms. Section 111 of the transfer of Property Act provides various methods by which a lease of immovable property can be determined. Under clause (h) of s. 111 a lease determines on the expiry of a notice to determine the lease given by the landlord to the tenant. Once the lease is deter-mined by notice -the lessor can enforce his ·right of recovery of possession of the property. But if the lease does not stand determined under any of the clauses (a) to (g) of s. 111 notice under s. 106, Transfer of Property Act to determine the lease is necessary. But this section does not imp0se an obliga- tion on the landlord to spell out the grounds on which the landlord wishes to evict the tenant. During the postwar years all the State Legislatures pas!ed Building :md Rent Control Acts to give protection to tenants against unreasonable eviction by the landlords as well as to prevent the landlords from exploiting the tenants by way of exorbitl\llt rents. As in the case of all social legislation which is de- signed for the protection of the needy, the Rent Control Acts have brought considerable inroad on the landlord's freedom of contract. Many Acts have brought about considerable changes in the righ~ and liabilities of the lessor and the lessee and the tilt of the law is largely in fnour of the lessee. The landlord is bound to let out his premises on rent to a person even against his wishes when the concerned authority allots a parti~ular premises to a person. _ When once the premises are so allotted, the landlord is bound to give the pre- mises to that person l!llld at the rent fixed by the authority concerned. In the matter of determination of the tenancy .the State Rent Acts do not permit a landlord to snap his relationship with the tenant merely by serving on him a notice to quit as is the position under the Transfer of Property Act. The 'landlord can recover possession of the property only on one or more of the grounds enacted in the relevant section of the Rent Acts. Even after the termination of the contractual tenancy the landlord, under the definitions of land- . lord and tenant contained in the Rent Acts, remains a landlord and a tenant remains a tenant because of the eXpress provision made in the enactments that a tenant means "a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour." It is also provided that no .landlord can treat a building to have been vacant by merely terminating the contractual tenancy -.... - 1 • h.(,.. , \ V. D. CHBTTIAR V. YBSODAI 335 as the tenant still lawfully continues in possession of the premises. Yet another important feature of the Rent Acts is that either by way of a non-obstante clause or by necessary implication these enactinents have done away with the law contained in s. 108 of the T. P. Act dealing with rights and liabilities of the .lessor and the lessee. The difference between the position obtaining under· the Transfer of Property Act and the Rent Acts in the matter of determination of a lease is that under the former Act to recover possession of the property determination of the lease is necessary because during the continuance of the lease the landlord cannot recover possession of the premises while under the Rent Acts the landlord be. comes entitled to recover possession only on the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in the relevant sections. He cannot recover possession merely by determining the tenancY. Nor can he be stopped from doing so on the ground that he has not terminated the contractual tenancy. In the instant case the appellant filed an application against the tenant under s. 10(3)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1970 calling upon him to quit 'On the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Con~ troller rejected her application. The Appellate Court, while 'holding that the respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.