Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing The Manager To The Lessees Of The ... vs Chidambaram Chetti And Six Ors. on 25 September, 1913

Battina Appanna And Ors. vs Sreemanthu Raja Yarlagadda ... on 3 April, 1917

4. The last contention was that as the sanction of the Collector was not obtained for the increased rent, the suit was misconceived. We do not think that an extra payment due for additional advantage is necessarily an enhancement. Where new circumstances have come into existence which require new adjustments, there is no question of enhancement. The principle of The Manager to the Lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari v. Chidambaram Chetti I.L.R. 38 M. 524 is applicable to this case. We do not think that Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of Section 30 have any application. They contemplate the continuance of the old state of affairs and yet a claim is made for increased rent without offering any fresh advantage. In such cases, there would be enhancement.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Doraiswami Gurukkal And Anr. vs Subramania Gurukkal And Ors. on 19 December, 1927

In The Manager to the Lessees of the Sivasankara Zamindary v. Chidambaram Chetti (1913) ILR 38 M 524 it was held that if the rent was enhanced according to a clause already embodied in the patta providing that additional rent would be paid for increased area, then there would be no need for the landlord to invoke the aid of Section 42 (1) (a) or for the Collector to settle the dispute under Section 42 (2).
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Rajah Of Vizianagaram vs Kuriminelli Narayanaswami Naidu And ... on 18 October, 1935

7. For the proposition that rent can be adjusted without reference to outside authority, the Manager to the lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari v. Chidambaram Chetti (1913) 25 M.L.J. 641 : I.L.R. 38 Mad. 524 is cited. The patta in that case contained a clause that any excess area found on measurement should be paid for at a certain rate. It was held that a claim for rent for an excess so found was sustainable even though no order had been obtained from the Collector under Section 42 Clause (ii) of the Act. That case has no application here.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sreemedhanidhi Swamigal By Agent H. ... vs Valai Ibrahim Sahib And Ors. on 22 July, 1924

2. The next case relied upon by him is that reported in Sivanganga Zemindari v. Chidambaram Chetty 21 Ind. Cas. 556 : 38 M. 524 : 14 M.L.T. 386 : (1913) M.W.N. 926. In that case,,; there was no enhancement of rent in the strict sense of the term.... There was" a demand for ah additional sum on account of the 'increased extent of the holding. Enhancement of rent means enhancement in the rate of rent or additional rent and not merely the increase in the amount claimed. If by reason of a new survey or for any other reason, the extent of the holding is found to be more than that for which the tenant was paying rent, the landlord is entitled to claim additional rent in respect of such additional extent found in the tenant's holding, and, therefore, this case does not help the appellant. Under the old Act VIII of 1865, the Courts enforced the agreements entered into between the landlord and the tenant; and Section 11 made it obligatory on the tenant to abide by the terms entered into with the landlord, but the present Act is against allowing the land-" lords to enforce the contracts entered into by them with the tenants unless such contracts came within the purview of the Act. The present Act expressly excludes the right of the landlord to enforce an agreement entered into with the tenants when the enforcement of such contracts would be to the detriment of the tenants. That being the scope and the object of the Act, I do not think it would be right in a case like this, where the landlord enters into an arrangement with the tenant for the purpose of claiming enhanced rent, to allow the appellant to succeed.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1