Lakshmi Subrahmanyam vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 16 February, 2010
15. The trial Court has decreed the suit. The first appellate Court made a reversal of the judgment, stating that in the instant case, Notice under Section 11 of the Act should have been issued, which is a mandatory one and there was no waiver of notice by filing application under Section 9 of the Act. For that, the learned Subordinate Judge followed the Bench decision, as referred to above. It is made clear that this Court cannot have any quarrel over the said judgment. The only question is whether the said judgment could be applied to the present facts of the case and this Court is of the considered opinion that it is highly difficult. When the question of application of the said judgment would arise, the first defendant has to show himself as a tenant under the City Tenants Protection Act. If he is unable to show the same, no question of application of the decision would arise. In a given case, where no notice is given under Section 11 of the City Tenants Protection Act, it is a well-settled proposition of law that even if application under Section 9 of the Act, claiming benefit, has not been filed, the defendant can claim the benefit on legal positions that non-issuance of notice was fatal to the plaintiff's case. But this is applicable to the case where the defendant is able to show himself as a tenant, as contemplated under the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act.