S. SHANKAR KUMAR Vs. J. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions to revise the Order of the Small Cause Court Registrar in the distress applications filed by the Respondent, who is not before me but for whom an amicus curiae has been appointed as the point raised is of some interest. The Respondent filed an application for the issue of a distress warrant under Sec. 53 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (Act XXV of 1882). This is a special provision in the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, applicable to the City of Madras, whereby any person claiming to be entitled to arrears of rent of any house or premises may apply to any judge of the Small Causes Court or to the Registrar of the Small Causes Court as the case may be for warrant under Sec. 53 of the Act as prescribed therein. In this Act, the word rent has not been defined and, therefore, it should be understood in the popular sense. Rent of any house would, therefore, as popularly understood, mean that consideration for the occupation of the premises and would not take into its fold such other money paid by the tenant as incidental to such occupation. In recent times, a concept has developed, which has been accepted, even by the Municipal authorities under which any charge for amenities for occupying a house by a tenant is outside the pale of the understanding and meaning of the expression rent. With this background, I shall now set a few facts relating to this case.

(2.) In the two distraint applications, the Respondent as landlord sought for the issue of distraint warrant on the ground that a portion of the premises stated by him in the petitions represented rent and a further sum was payable by the tenant towards amenities provided by him in the demised premises. Rightly, therefore, an objection was taken by the Petitioner -tenant that as Sec. 53 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts, act would only apply to a case for the application and issue of distraint warrant in cases, where the entitlement of the claimant relates to arrears of rent simpliciter and at in the present application, the Respondent claimed such an issue of warrant not only for rent in the popular sense, but also for incidental charges also, such as amenities, etc., Sec. 53 of the Act cannot be involved. The small Cause Court Registrar held otherwise. Hence, the revision petitions.

(3.) I agree with Miss. Bakula appearing for the Petitioner that this is a case in which law should be understood in its strictest sense as it is a peculiar provision available to the City in favour of the landlord and it should not be taken undue advantage of by the landlords, if strictly the text and the intendment of the provision is not evocable in a given circumstance. Admittedly in this case, the distraint warrant is sought for from the Small Cause Court Registrar under Sec. 53 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act on the ground that the Petitioner -tenant is not only in arrears of the rent, but also charges for amenities. Such consolidation and integration of the claim is not provided for under the Act, The Act only speaks of an application for the issue of distress warrant for recovery of rent alone. If any other claim is included in it and a distress warrant is sought for even for such a consolidated amount which could not be recovered under the provisions of the said Act, as stated above, then it follows that such an application is not maintainable in law. I agree with Miss. Bakula. Even the learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Ramachandran appearing as Amicus Curiae to whom the Court is thankful is not able to say that the provision is directly applicable to the facts of the cast in these circumstances, these two revision petitions are allowed.