Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On the relevant date, undoubtedly there was no letting of the building and it is nobody's case that the same was to be let.
The correctness of this statement found in the Judgment of the learned Judge, namely, that it was nobody's case that the building was to be let has not been challenged either in the grounds of the appeal filed before this Court or in the arguments before us. Therefore we have to proceed on the basis that it was not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff wanted to let the premises in question. This Court has construed the relevant expression, namely, 'building to be let' occurring in Section 2(2) of the Act as meaning 'building intended to be let' in R. K. Veerappa Naidu and Anr. v. N. Gopalan (1961) 1 M.L.J. 223. In the present case on 10th June, 1964 it was not the case of the defendants that the building was intended to be let and it was not also their case that at any stage thereafter the plaintiff intended to let the suit building. Therefore it follows that the suit building did not come within the purview of the Act as a result of the amending Act XI of 1964. If the suit premises did not become a building as defined in the Act, a fortiori late Seetharama Rao did not become a tenant, as defined in the Act on 10th June, 1964.

30. Independently of the above, the learned Judge has also held that in any event late Seetharama Rao did not become a tenant as defined in the Act. The definition of the term 'tenant' as defined the Act before the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964 stood as follows:

'Tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal representative of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops .has been farmed out or leased by a municipal council or district board or the Corporation of Madras.
The Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964, did not touch this definition at all, therefore this definition will apply to late Seetharama Rao, if at all, only if the Act applied to the building. On our conclusion that the Act did not apply to the said building, the question of late Seetharama Rao being a tenant as defined in the Act does not arise. Therefore we are considering this question only alternatively, namely, even assuming that the Act applied to the suit building on 10th June, 1964 by virtue of the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964, still whether late Seetharama Rao fell within the definition of the term 'tenant' as defined in the Act. Admittedly the first limb of this definition did not apply to late Seetharama Rao because by 29th February, 1964 the tenancy in his favour had been terminated and, if at all he would fall within the scope of the inclusive portion of the definition alone, namely, 'a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour'. The learned trial Judge has taken the view that the termination of the tenancy contemplated in this definition must be termination after the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964 and it cannot take in a termination of the tenancy that has taken place prior to the coming into force of the said Act because such a construction will give retrospective effect to the definition. The learned trial Judge has also pointed out that analogous Acts of other States use the expression "after the termination of the tenancy, whether before or after the commencement of this Act" and that as the definition of the Tamil Nadu Act has not used that expression, the intention of the Legislature was to take in only termination of tenancy made subsequent to the coming into force of the Act and not termination of the tenancy which had taken place before the coming into force of the Act. In the present case from 30th September, 1960 till 10th June, 1964 on which date the Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964 came into force, the building in question was outside the purview of the Act and the termination of the tenancy had taken place during this interval and therefore the termination of tenancy in this case not being subsequent to 10th June, 1964, the inclusive portion of the definition of the term 'tenant' in Section 2(8) of the Act will not take in late Seetharama Rao. On this ground late Seetharama Rao will not be a tenant as defined in the Act.

48. Hence we are clearly of the opinion that the present suit instituted by the plaintiff did not abate under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964. It is convenient to consider the fourth and fifth points together. The question that arises for consideration is whether the tenancy came to an end upon the death of Seetharama Rao or not. Naturally this question will arise only if our conclusion that by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964 the building in question did not come within the purview of the Act or that late Seetharama Rao did not become a tenant as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act is wrong. Therefore, for the purpose of consideration of this question, we are proceeding on the assumption that the Act applied to the building in question on 10th June, 1964 and late Seetharama Rao became a tenant as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act, by virtue of the operation of the Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964. N. S. Ramaswami, J., has held that with the death of Seetharama Rao, whatever protection he had against eviction, came to an end. In other words, late Seetharama Rao became what is loosely described as a "statutory tenant" on his death. "Statutory" tenancy came to an end and for this purpose the learned Judge relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely Anand Nivas Private Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi and Ors. and J. C. Chatterjee and Ors. v. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon and Anr.