Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 3 in The Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 [Entire Act]
Estate Of T.P. Ramaswami Pillai vs A. Mohd Yousfuf And Ors. on 4 July, 1983
Our attention was invited to various decisions of the Madras
High Court taking the same view i.e. actual physical possession of
the demised premises is essential to maintain an application under
Section 9 of the Act. As a matter of fact the learned counsel for the
appellant cited the case in Estate of T.P. Ramaswami Pillai v. A.
Mohd. Yousuf and others Madras Law Journal 1983 (2) which
takes the same view. We fail to understand how this authority helps
the appellant. In our view it fully supports the case of the
respondents.
The Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Gummalapura Taggina ... vs Setra Veeravva And Others on 19 December, 1958
In support of
his contention he relied on Gummalapura Taggina Matada
Kotturuswami v. Setra Veeravva and others [1958 (1) SCR 968].
This was a case under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 14
(1) of the Act provides "any property by a joint Hindu family, whether
acquired before or after the commencement of this Act shall be held
by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner." In the
context of this provision it was held that the word "possession"
occurring in Section 14 (1) is used with widest connotation and it may
be either actual or constructive or in any form recognized by law. We
are afraid that the wide meaning given to the word possession in
Section 14 in the Act cannot have any relevance for purposes of
provision of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Act under consideration. As
already noted Section 9 read with Section 3 of the Act makes it
imperative that the tenants should be in possession of the premises
with respect to which the right to purchase is sought to be exercised.
If a tenant is not to hand over possession of the suit premises to the
landlord at the time of ejectment, there is no question of payment of
any compensation to him under Section 3 of the Act. If he is not
entitled to compensation under Section 3 of the Act he cannot invoke
Section 9 of the Act. Actual physical possession is essential in the
context of relevant provisions of the Act.
Section 41 in Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
P. Ananthakrishnan Nair & Anr vs Dr. G. Ramakrishnan & Anr on 31 March, 1987
In P.
Ananthakrishnan's case (supra) as per concurrent findings of fact
on record the tenant had discontinued its business in the suit
premises and only a small portion thereof had been retained by them
for keeping the accounts books etc. of the erstwhile business. Rest
of the land and the superstructure standing thereon had been in
occupation of sub-tenants since long. Thus the tenant was not in
actual occupation of most part of the demised premises. Therefore, it
was held that it would be unreasonable to direct the landlord to sell
the land to the tenants.
Section 14 in The Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 [Entire Act]
1