HAJI ABDULLAH SAIT Vs. K. SANJEEVI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of this Court on fee original side, namely, in C.S. No. 218 of 1965. The former appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, while the latter appeal has been filed by the third defendant in the suit. Since both sides have preferred appeals, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as they have been arrayed in the suit. Admittedly the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. Equally admittedly the property was leased to one late Seetharama Rao under Exhibit P -1 dated 8th July, 1940 and the lease expired on 15th July, 1943, but late Seetharama Rao continued to be in possession as a tenant holding over. This was obviously because the Rent Control Orders and the legislations that were in force in this State gave protection to such persons from eviction. The legislation regarding control of rents started during the second world war. In the then Presidency of Madras the first two orders under the Defence of India Rules were issued as the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941 and the Madras Godown Rent Control Order, 1942. In 1945 these orders were re -issued with slight changes, as the Tamil Nadu House Rent Control Order, 1945 and the Tamil Nadu Non -residential Buildings Rent Control Order, 1945. They were replaced by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 which in turn was replaced by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. That Act also was replaced by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, which came into force on 30th September, 1960, and which is the Act now in force. The Act contained certain exemptions in Section 30, according to which the Act did not apply to:

(2.) LATE Seetharama Rao not having surrendered possession of the premises on the expiry of the notice, that is, on 1st March, 1964, the plaintiff instituted the present suit on 2nd March, 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for a decree against late Seetharama Rao directing him to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property and to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per month, from the date of the plaint till recovery of vacant possession. The plaint was a simple one and it stated that late Seetharama Rao was not using the building let to him in a proper manner and had not been maintaining, it in good condition, that he had also put up ovens without the permission of the plaintiff and that inspite of protests made by the plaintiff, he had not rectified the defects pointed out to him. The plaintiff also stated that he was in bona fide need of the premises for his own use as business premises and late Seetharama Rao was also informed about the plaintiff's need, but he had not cared to heed to his request. The plaintiff referred to Exhibit P -2 notice and stated that late Seetharama Rao having failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises the plaintiff was instituting the suit for recovery of possession of the property with damages for use and occupation from the date of plaint at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per month which, according to the plaintiff, would he less than the prevailing rents in the market for similar accommodation.

(3.) AFTER the filing of this written statement, the State Legislature enacted an amending Act, namely. The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment Act, 1964, (Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1964), which, was published in the Fort St. George Gazette Extraordinary dated 10th June, 1964. This Act omitted Clause (iii) of Section 30 of the Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act II of 1962, namely, the provision directing non -applicability of the Act to non -residential building or part thereof occupied by any one tenant if the monthly rent paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeded Rs. 400 while Section 2 of the Amendment Act XI of 1964 amended Section 30 in this behalf as well as in certain other minor respects. It contained a section as Section 3 as follows: