RUGINI NAGESH Vs. KISHIN B CHHABRIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant occupied her building on 1.5.1969 on a monthly rent of Rs. 800, that from September 1977 onwards, he had committed wilful default in payment of the rent, that she issued a notice terminating the tenancy ending with 31.12.1977 and calling upon the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the premises, but the defendant sent a reply alleging falsely that there is an agreement for sale between them and he is in possession of the property in pursuance of the sale agreement and therefore he was not bound to surrender possession. It is further stated in the plaint that as the monthly rent payable by the tenant is Rs. 800, and under Section 30(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a residential building fetching the monthly rent above Rs. 400 is exempted from the purview of the Act, the suit was filed for recovery of possession and also for damages for use and occupation.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff has entered into a sale agreement for the suit property in favour of himself and his sister Pushpa, but as the plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, they have filed a suit C.S. No. 445/78 for specific performance in this Court and the remedy could be worked out only in that suit. THE validity of the termination of the tenancy also is questioned by the defendant.

(3.) NOW the only question to be considered is whether the eviction of the defendant is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter to be referred to as Act, in view of the removal of the exemption given under Section 30(2) of the said Act by the decision of the Supreme Court in Rattan Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1986 S.C. 1444) or is liable to be ejected under the common law in view of the fact that the Act was not applicable at the time of the filing of the suit in the year 1983. The learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. K. Ravi contended that under the Act, there is no express ouster of jurisdiction for passing a decree for recovery of possession of a building from the tenant though the execution alone is barred under the said Act by the civil Court and therefore, the decree can be passed in this suit for the reason that the building was exempted from the purview of the Act in the year 1983 when the suit was filed. He also relied upon series of decisions in support of his argument that the civil Court has powers to grant the decree for possession though the execution could be carried out only under the provisions of the Act.