Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

35.In C.R.P.No.2436 of 1995 order dated 30.07.1999 S.Mohammed Iqubal V. M.Padmanabhan at para 8, it is inter alia observed that 'The argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is not maintainable and only a petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is maintainable, as the landlord is in occupation of a portion of the very same premises' does not appear to be correct, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India V. Radhakrishnan V. S.N. Loganatha Mudaliar, MANU/SC/0499/1998 referred to above. Even if this argument is correct, yet I am of the opinion that the order of the authorities below cannot be interfered with for more than one reason. Mere quoting a wrong provision of law cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the landlord, if the materials otherwise available on record enables him to get the relief, is too well settled. It is no doubt true that in the rent control petition, the provision of law quoted is only under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and there is no pleading on the ground of additional accommodation as well on the ground of relative hardship. In the counter affidavit of the first respondent, a point has been taken that the petition under Section 10(3)(c) alone is maintainable and in that event the relative hardship should be gone into. There is also no pleading by the respondent before the rent controller on relative hardship."

36.In the aforesaid decision reported in 1999(3) CTC Page 116, it is held as follows:

"Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 10(3)(c)  Quoting wrong provision of law  Petition filed for owner's occupation whereas requirement amounted only to additional accommodation  Mis-quoting of provision law would not disentitle relief to party if he is otherwise entitled to such relief. (Para 20) Procedure Law  Misquoting of provision of Law  Quoting wrong provision of law - Petition filed for owner's occupation whereas requirement amounted only to additional accommodation  Mis-quoting of provision law would not disentitle relief to party if he is otherwise entitled to such relief. (Para 20)".