Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. In the light of our findings, we answer the question referred to us in the negative.

32. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to deal with another question which was, however, not seriously canvassed before us. The question is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in ejectment or pass a decree against the appellant when his defence is that he is a statutory tenant and liable to be evicted only under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. So far as this matter Is concerned, it is by now well settled that there is no thing in S. 10 of the Act prohibiting the institution of a suit for possession or prohibiting a civil court from passing a decree for possession. What is prohibited under the section is only the execution of a decree for ejectment passed by a civil court. We may only refer to Muhamadunni v. Melapurakkal Unnir (1949 ) 1 Mad LJ 452: (AIR 1949 Mad 765) and B. V. Patankar v. C. G. Sastry, , in this behalf. As we have held that the appellant is not attendant entitled to claim protection under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, it follows that even the bar of execution of the decree, contained in S. 10 will riot be attracted.