V. BICHAWA Vs. M. VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Shanmugha Appah v. Abdul Hameed : AIR 1974 Mad 133 Kailasam, J. (as he then was), took the view that, though persons, who receive rent on their own account or on behalf of any other person or on behalf of themselves or others, may in a sense be receiving rent on behalf of others as agents, that class of persons is not excluded under Section 10(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In another case, Syed Ibrahim v. Sudarsanam and Ors., (1972) T.L.N.J. 259 the same learned Judge expressed as follows:

(2.) IN the instant case what has been brought out on record appears to be that the petitioner has to be classified as a person who was receiving rent on behalf of another, and though, in a sense, he might be called an agent, that class of persons, according to the decisions in Shanmugha Appah v. Abdul Hameed : AIR 1974 Mad 133 is not excluded under Section 10(8) of the Act. Again it is doubtful whether the non obstante Clause in Section 10(8) would also be applicable to applications filed under Sections 14 to 16 of the Act. The argument of learned Counsel for the respondent is that, as Section 10(1) provides that there could be no eviction except in accordance with the provisions of Sections 14 to 16 of the Act, the impact of Section 10(8) should also be visited on applications under Sections 14 to 16 of the Act. I am unable to agree with this contention of learned Counsel for the respondent. But, as there is the judgment of a single Judge of this Court, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench for a final decision. Post accordingly.

(3.) WHEN the matter came before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice originally, reliance was placed on a decision of Kailasam, J., as he then was in K. Shanmugha Appa v. S.S. Abul Homeed : AIR 1974 Mad 133 , as well as on an unreported judgment of the same learned Judge in C. R.P. Nos. 7, 100 and 101 of 1971 and C.M.P. Nos. 11248 and 11809 of 1971 (M.S. Syed Ibrahim v. M. K. Sudarsanam and Ors.), (1972) T.L.N.J. 259 judgment, dated 21st March, 1972. The learned Chief Justice was not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent in the civil revision petition, based on the said judgments add hence the reference to this Court.