K. SUKUMARAN NAIR Vs. S. NEELAKANTAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question of law that has been argued in this batch of Civil Revision Petitions is whether a noice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required before taking action under one or the order of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960). The facts which are common and which are not agitated before me need not be adverted to. But the question has arisen in all these cases whether a notice of termination of tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act is required at all before a petition could be presented to the statutory authority under the Building Act for obtaining relief under the various provisions of the Act.

(2.) THERE is abundance of case law on this subject and at one time they were perplexing and apparently contradictory as well. I shall now trace the various decided cases to find whether in the view of the Supreme Court as laid down by them and reiterated by them later the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act still would hold the field and should be looked into for purpose of observance of some of its prescriptions before an application under the Building Act could be filed. I may at once state that having regard to the declared law of the Supreme Court such an invocation of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act including that prescription in Section 106 of it may not be necessary at all. The earliest ruling on the question is the decision of a Division Bench of our Court in Krishnamoorthy v. Parthasarathy, (1949)1 MLJ 412 : AIR 1949 Mad. 780. Therein learned Judges said that no notice determining the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter for convenience called notice) was necessary before a landlord attempts to seek some relief under the special enactment, namely, the Tamil Nadu Building Act. This view was approved by another Division Bench of our Court in George Oakes Ltd. v. The Chief Judge, Small Cause Court Madras, (1952)1 MLJ 317, but a controversv arose in 1966. In that case the subject matter was as to what ought to be the fair rent of the demised premises. But in view of the contentions of counsel therein a Full Bench was constituted and in M/s. Raval and Co. v. Ramachandran, ILR (1966)2 Madras 437 : AIR 1967 Madras 57, the question whether a notice is required before action is taken under this Special Act, was considered alongside with the main dispute in that case which related to fixation of fair rent. The Full Bench again approved the ratio in R. Krishnamoorthy v. Parthasarathy (supra), and held that no such notice was necessary.

(3.) WHILST this was the position, the decision of the full Bench reported in Raval and Company v. Ramachandran (supra), [hereinafter to be refered to as Raval Case (3)]. Came up in appeal before the Supreme Court in Raval and Company v. K.G. Ramachandran, 1947 Rent Control Reporter 170 : (1974)2 S.C.R. 629 : AIR 1974 SC 818. The observations of Alagiriswami, J., who spoke for the majority of the Bench are very apposite and it would be convenient to except them in Stead of summarising.