A. Moses Pillai vs M.K. Govindan on 22 August, 1947
Moses Pillai v. Govindan, 1948-1 Mad LJ 51: AIR 1948 Mad 346 was followed.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)R. Krishnamurthy vs S. Parthasarathy And Anr. on 6 January, 1949
But in Krishnamurthy v. Parthasarathy, 1949-1 Mad LJ 412: AIR 1949 Mad 780, this decision was reversed, and the Division Bench held that a notice to quit under S. 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act was not necessary before filing an application under Section 7 of Madras Act XV of 1946.
S. Raja Chetty And Anr. vs Jagannathadas Govindas And Ors. on 16 September, 1946
expressly referred to his own decision in Raja Chetti's case, and pointed out that the decision did not imply that a tenant could validly contract himself out of the benefits conferred on him by the Act.
George Oakes Ltd. vs The Chief Judge, Small Causes Court And ... on 27 February, 1950
(10) In George Oakes Ltd. v. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, , one of the decisions noticed by our learned brother(Srinivisan J.) in the reference, a Division Bench held that Section 4 of Madras Act XV of 1946, which deals with the fixation of fair rent, expressly included the landlord as a person entitled to apply to have the fair rent fixed. There was nothing in the section to confine its application to contractual rents payable under the subsisting lease. But the landlord could not claim the difference between the fair rent which has been fixed in excess of the contractual rent, and, the contractual rent, anterior to the date of his application. The learned Chief Justice(Rajamannar C.J.)
Sha Manumal Misrimal vs Natha Rukmani Ammal on 1 January, 1964
In Sha Manumal Misrimal v. Natha Rukmani Ammal, 1964-1 Mad LJ 312, Venkatadri, J. has held that S. 30 of Act 18 of 1960 does not violate the equality guaranteed under Art. 114 of the Constitution and is not void or ultra vires and that the classification of protected buildings and exempted buildings on the basis of the rent is a reasonable one, consistent with the object of the Act, and is not discriminatory.
D.P. Merchant vs The Bank Of Mysore Limited on 21 January, 1949
In D.P. Merchant v. Bank of Mysore Ltd. 1949-1 Mad LJ 417: AIR 1949 Mad 784. Satyanarayana Rao J. followed this decision and held that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to order eviction, even in cases where the contractual tenancy had not been determined under S. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, as Section 7 of the Rent Control Act applied both to contractual and statutory tenancies.
B. Rangaswami Naidu vs Vummidi Bangaru Chetty And Sons And Anr. on 10 March, 1948
(9) In Ramaswami Naidu v. Bangaru Chetti and Sons, AIR 1949 Mad 139, a Division Bench of Rajamannar C.J. and Satyanarayana Rao J. pointed out, in the context of the facts of that case, that in construing Madras Act XV of 1948, it was not permissible to import conceptions which relate to the ordinary law of landlord and tenant, either under the Transfer of Property Act, or as obtaining in England.
P. Venkataswami, Receiver, In T.O.S. ... vs Abdul Rahim And Brothers on 13 September, 1961
In conclusion, we might notice two comparatively recent decisions of this court, namely, Venkataswami v. Abdul Rahim and Bros, 1962-1 Mad LJ 406 and Md. Burhanuddin v. Official Trustee of Madras 1961-2 Mad LJ 29 the former decision squarely held, under Madras Act XIV of 1949, that a tenant could apply for the fixation of fair rent, notwithstanding an agreement to pay rent under a contractual tenancy, apparently, in the light of case-law that I have set forth, the proposition was almost taken for granted since the case-law is not discussed. Ramakrishnan J. in the latter decision pointed out that so long as the contractual rent does not exceed the fair rent, determinable by statute, which under the Act of 1949, was a specified maximum the contract rent could well be enforced. But in cases where the contract rent exceeded the maximum, then the principle applied that the tenant cannot contract himself out of the statute.
S. Venkataratnam vs G. Lalluram on 25 April, 1950
In Venkataratnam v. Lalluram, 1950-2 Mad LJ 489 Rajamannar C.J. and Balakrishna Iyer J. again held, that even during the continuance of the contractual tenancy, a tenant may be evicted under S. 7(1) of Madras Act XV of 1946.
1