Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Full Bench of this Court has held thus:

"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 and Control) Act So far as this matter is concerned, it is by now well settled that there is nothing in Section 10 of the Act 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 Muthumandunni v. Melapurakkal Unniri, 1949 (1) MLJ 452 and B.V.Patankar v. C.C.Sastry, in this behalf. As we have held that the appellant is not a tenant entitled to claim protection under the Tamil Nadu (Buildings and Lease Control) Act, it follows that even the bar of execution of the decree, contained in Section 10 will not be attracted."
"It is by now well settled that there is nothing in Section 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."

That is only in consequence with Section 10 of the Act The question now arises for consideration in this revision is whether in respect of a building, for a period of five years from the date on which the construction is made, the Act is not....

23. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Kushan Das J. Vithalani v. Bhamidi Kameswara Rao and others, 1987 (1) RCJ 255 as well as S. Ramiah v. Ariyakudi Kalyana Krishna Hospital Trust by Managing Trustee etc., 1988 (1) LW 409. It is not necessary to refer to these decisions in detail. In Firm Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand, the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court, while considering the provisions of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 where a landlord who obtained a decree for ejectment was resisted at the stage of execution on the ground that the condition prescribed in the notification of exemption was not complied with. The Apex Court, after considering the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 has held thus: