B. KALYANASUNDARAM Vs. A.R. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition comes before us on a reference made by Ramaprasad Rao, J, as he considered that an authoritative decision should be made as to whether Raval and Co. v. Ramachandran : (1966)2MLJ68 , in so far as it relates to eviction on ground of default in payment of rent, is still good law after Manujendra Dutt v. P. P. Roy Chowdhury (1967) 1 A.W.R. 61 : (1967) 1 M.L.J.61 : (1967) 1 S.C.J. 503.

(2.) THE respondent applied to the Controller under Section 10(2)(1) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for en order of eviction. The Controller granted it on a finding that there had been ' wilful default' in payment of rent on the part of the petitioner and the appeal by the latter had failed. In the lower appellate Court a point was taken, for the first time for the petitioner, that for failure to serve notice under Section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, the application for eviction was liable to be dismissed. This objection was rejected on two grounds: (1) the point was not raised before the Controller and, it should, therefore, be assumed that the petitioner must have waived his right, and (2) that the Madras Act, being a self -contained code, providing for eviction under certain circumstances and the machinery thereof, there was no legal requirement of notice of termination as a condition precedent to an order for eviction. It is this point that survives in revision, in this Court, as the other factual finding of the lower appellate Court as to wilful default in payment of rent has become conclusive. Raval and Co. v. Ramachandran : (1966)2MLJ68 , decided by a Full Bench of this Court, does support the view of the lower appellate Court as to the non -necessity of termination of tenancy by notice before invoking the provisions of Madras Act XVIII of 1960 in ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent.

(3.) RAVAL and Co. v. Ramachandren : (1966)2MLJ68 , was decided on 20th January, 1966. On 22nd September ,1966 came the decision in Maunjendra Dutt v. P. P. Roy Chowdhury (1967) 1 A.W.R. 61 : (1967) 1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 61 : (1967) 1 S.C.J. 503 in which R. Krishnamurthy v. Parthasarathy : (1949)1MLJ412 , which was one of the decisions relied on for the conclusion in Raval and Co. v. Ramachandran : (1966)2MLJ68 , was held to be not correct law. In view of this, the question is whether Raval and Co. v. Ramachandran : (1966)2MLJ68 , can nevertheless hold the field. In our view it can no longer. But, in passing we desire to state that we do not decide, in this case, whether termination by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act of a tenancy is required before initiation of proceedings for fixation of fair rent under Madras Act XVIII of 1960. That matter, which is also covered by Raval &Co. v. Ramachandran : (1966)2MLJ68 , will have to be considered separately if and when it arises.