Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.08 seconds)
S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984 cites

P. J. Irani vs The State Of Madras on 21 April, 1961

In our view there is no substance in the contention. It cannot be disputed that the two objectives of the enactment, namely, to control rents and to prevent unreasonable eviction are interrelated and the provisions which subserve these objectives supplement each other. Tn P. J. Irani's case (supra), Sarkar, J, has also observed at page 193 of the Report that "the purpose of the Act, quite clearly, is to prevent unreasonable eviction and also to control rent. These two purpose are intertwined." it is obvious that if the trustees of the public religious trusts and public charities are to be given freedom to charge the normal market rent then to make that freedom effective it will be necessary to arm the trustees with the right to evict the tenants for non-payment of such market rent. The State Government on material before it came to the conclusion that the 'fair 'rent' fixed under the Act was unjust in case of such buildings and it was necessary to permit the trustees of such buildings to recover from their tenants reasonable market rent and if that be so non-eviction when reasonable market rent is not paid would be unreasonable and if the market rent is paid by the tenants no trustee is going to evict them. It is, therefore, clear that granting total exemption cannot be regarded as excessive or unwarranted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 197 - Full Document
1   2 Next