Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)

The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd., ... vs K.S. Subramaniya Iyer on 30 January, 1963

Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case(1) was sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that in the present case the defendant was entitled to put up the building beyond the value of Rs. 50,0001-. But clause 2 (c) of the lease deed, set out above, clearly shows that the plaintiffs required "a theatre with all proper offices and out buildings such as bazars, restaurants, motor and dunamo sheds etc., and fences, drains, sewers to be used for production and exhibition of films and for staging drama therein" to be erected. The plaintiffs wanted to ensure that the cost of the building would not be less than Rs. 50,0001- in order that the building would be of a proper quality of construction. There is no evidence as to what other buildings the defendant had put up. On these facts we cannot say that these were not stipulations as to the erection of buildings within the meaning of the proviso to S. 12. It must be remembered that the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, was passed in 1922 to give protection to certain classes of tenants who had constructed buildings on others' lands in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they paid a fair rent for the land. It was not the object of the Act to cover a hope if the 'hope' was entertained contrary to express stipulations as to erection of buildings. Accordingly proviso to S. 12 exempted any stipulations made by the tenant in writing registered as to the erection of buildings, in so far' as they related to buildings erected after the date of the contract. The plaintiffs-appellants applied for amendment of their plaint dated April 15, 1964, by adding the following words in the Prayer Clauses "(a) after the words : as from 1-3-1964 (1) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1683.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1