S MANIMUDI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to declare that Sec. 11 (4) of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as'the act'), is unconstitutional, being repugnant to the very object of the act.

(2.) THE petitioner is admittedly a tenant under the second respondent of premises No. 8, Thulukanam Street , Varadarajapuram, Madras-2. On a rent of rs. 50 per mensem. THE second respondent filed R. C. O. P. No. 64 of 1983 under sec. l0 (2) (i) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. An application was filed by the second respondent under Sec. 11 of the Act for a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent and in default to stop the proceedings. An order was passed by the Rent controller directing the tenant to pay the rent and as he did not comply with the same, an order was passed under Sec. 11 (4) of the Act on 8. 4. 1985 directing him to put the second respondent in possession of the building. THE second respondent filed E. P. No. 177 of 1988 for executing the order. THE petitioner contested the same and filed M. P. No. 852 of 1988 under Sec. 47 of the Code of civil Procedure for dismissal of the execution proceeding. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that the premises fell within an area declared to be slum area by the Government in G. O. No. 1528, dated 4. 12. 1971, under the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance and Improvement Act, 1971. THE tenant paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards arrears on 6. 1. 1989 and another sum of Rs. 2,350 on 7. 3. 1989. THE second respondent did not press the E. P. and it was dismissed on 7. 3. 1989. A fresh E. P. was filed in E. P. No. 312 of 1991. In the meanwhile, a writ petition was filed challenging the validity of the Notification under the tamil Nadu Slum Clearance and Improvement Act in this Court and the same was allowed. THE Notification was held to be null and goid. Again, the petitioner filed M. P. No. 577 of 1991 under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising the same contentions. That petition was dismissed on 7. 1. 1992. THE petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. THE petitioner also filed M. P. No. 138 of 1992 under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That was dismissed on 27. 4. 1992. THE petitioner filed R. C. A. No. 572 of 1992 against the said order. That appeal was dismissed on 28. 8. 1992.

(3.) ANOTHER Division Bench of this Court in Irani v. Chidambaram Chettiar, (1952)2 M. L. J. 221, dealt with the object of the Act and the scope of the preamble. The following passage is relevant: "it is common ground that as the preamble to the statute shows the object of the Legislature is to regulate the letting out of residential and non-residential buildings alike and to control the rent of such buildings and to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the state of Madras. It is common ground too that the preamble which is said to be a good means of finding out the meaning of the statute and, as it were, a key to the understanding of it may legitimately be consulted to solve any ambiguity or to find the meaning of words which may have more than one or to keep the effect of the Act within its real scope whenever the enacting part is in any of these respects open to doubt. (Vide Maxwell, on the interpretation of statutes, Ninth Edn. , by Sir Gillat Jackson, page 46.)"