Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Having regard to the above arguments, it is necessary on my part to find out the scope of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, in conjunction with Section 10(3)(e). But, before I do that, it is necessary to utter one word of caution. The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960, is a simple Act and the forerunner of it was the Act which was passed in the year 1949 as the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In the wake of World War II when there was acute scarcity of housing accommodation in various cities, an Act intended to be of a temporary duration was passed to relieve the undue hardship suffered by the tenants at the hands of the greedy landlords. But what was temporary, continued to be as temporary for long, getting revival after revival at the hands of Legislature. Ultimately, by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973, this Act became a permanent one. But in the working of the Act, it has been found that instead of trying to alleviate the hardships of the tenant it has come to perpetuate injustice as far as the landlords are concerned. May be the whirlgig of the time bings about strange revenges. It is no longer the tenant who is oppressed and the landlord the oppressor. It is the other way about. This is a simple Act under which both the landlords and the tenants could have worked out their rights without any complication whatever. Unfortunately, the Courts which should take a major portion of the. blame try to interpret this Act, in the light of various other Rent Control Legislations, tearing the provisions out of context. It is well-settled in law that unless there is some ambiguity it is the wisdom of the Legislature that should prevail. It is no function of the Court to add on to the Legislation. Even not a word or a comma could be added on. That is because it is the cardinal principle of interpretation of law to hold that the Legislature in its wisdom has chosen to adopt certain wordings in a section in an Act. In the guise of interpretation, if any attempt, is made by the Courts so as to introduce something which was never contemplated by the Legislature it would be doing great injustice to the spirit of the legislation. The Courts should not lean either in favour of the landlord or the tenant. It must interpret the law as it is and not bring into that interpretation its own pet theories or petty prejudices. If that were to be done, the Courts cease to be Courts and become partisans. Therefore, any tendency to lean either this way or that way should be altogether avoided. Then only the Courts reputation and the prestige will get enhanced. But what I find in most of the decisions is in disregard of the intention of the Legislature, some element or other is brought in depending upon the whims and fancies. That is why I would like to interpret the law as it stands and not saying one word more than is necessary. With this introduction, let me go on to the section. Section 10 forms the heart of this Act. That lays down the conditions under which tenants could be evicted. It should also be remembered that this is a special piece of legislation causing inroad into the general principles of law as enunciated by the Transfer of Property Act. A special legislation like this cannot be interpreted in a wide way so as to further infringe the general right available under the general law. If this background is kept in mind, most of the problems would not arise. But once there is a deviation or departure from this rule, the tendency of the Courts would be to bring in innovations. As a matter of fact, it is this which has made the Rent Control Legislation grow beyond all proportion and the Courts have almost crippled the working of the Act. This has enabled the erring parties to revel in this battle of law.