REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

AMRITLAL N.SHAH Appellant

V/S

ALLA ANNAPURNAMMA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MINAKSHI NAIDU V. SUBRAMANYA SASTRI [REFERRED TO]
DOE V. OLIVER [REFERRED TO]
SMITH V. BAKER [REFERRED TO]
BRADSHAW V. M MULLAN [REFERRED TO]
MILLS V. GREEN [REFERRED TO]
RANSOM V. CITY OF PIERRE [REFERRED TO]
RAMANANDAN CHETTI V. PULIKUTTI SERWAI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASWAMY CHETTY V. SITARAM CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
GRIFFITHS V. DAVIES [REFERRED TO]
J. AND F.STONE LIGHTING AND RADIO LTD. V. LEVITT [REFERRED TO]
MARITIME ELECTRIC CO. LTD. V. GENERAL DIARIES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
WELCH V. NAGY [REFERRED TO]
ESHELBY V. FEDERATED EUROPEAN BANK LTD. [REFERRED TO]
MAMMAD V. P.K.VEERARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
ANNAPURNAMMAGARU V. RAJAH OF VIZIANAGARAM [REFERRED TO]
B.GANGAYYA V. SATYANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
AIYATHURAI PILLAI V. GNANAPRAKASA ODAYAR [REFERRED TO]
LEDGARD V. BULL [REFERRED TO]
RANGAYYA NAIDU V. BASANA SIMON [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAKANT LAL V. RAMBHAJAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SUBBARAYA CHETTY V. NACHIAR AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
THIMMAYYA V. SIDDAPPA [REFERRED TO]
JANAKI V. KALLIANI AMMA [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATAN SAHU V. BISHUNCHAND [REFERRED TO]
CHINNA VENKATARAJU V. RAMACHANDRA RAO [REFERRED TO]
GANGES MANUFACTURING CO. V. SOURUJMULL [REFERRED TO]
APPALASURI V. KANNAMMA NAYURALU [REFERRED TO]
DORAISAMI PILLAI V. CHINNIA GOUNDAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMA CHANDRA V. MAHARAJA OF JEYPORE [REFERRED TO]
DAMODARAN V. ACHUTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KARSANDAS V. KARSANJI [REFERRED TO]
BALA LINGAYYA V. NALLAYYA [REFERRED TO]
SUMITRAMMA V. SUBBADU [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMADUNNY V. MELEPURAKKALA UNNIRI [REFERRED TO]
LACHMESWAR PRASAD V. KESHWAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
VENKAYYA V. VENKATA SUBBA RAO,1956 [REFERRED TO]
CHUNILAL KHUSHALDAS PATEL H K ADHYARU VS. H K ADHYARU [REFERRED TO]
KATNANI PROPERTIES LIMITED VS. AUGUSTINE [REFERRED TO]
KOLISETTI VENKATARATNAM VS. PATCHIGOLLA VENKATA RAO [REFERRED TO]
MUTYALA JAGGAMMA VS. MUTYALA SATYANARAYANAMURTHI [REFERRED TO]
RESIDENCE LTD VS. SURENDRA MOHAN BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
S RAJA GHETTY VS. JAGANNATHADAS GOVINDAS [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI AMMAL VS. NARAYANASWAMI NAICKER [REFERRED TO]
KESHO RAM PASSEY VS. P C TANDON [REFERRED TO]
RAM KHELAWAN SINGH VS. MAHARAJAH OF BENARES [REFERRED TO]
HEMANTA KUMARI DEVI VS. PRASANNA KUMAR DATTA [REFERRED TO]
AMBU NAIR V. KELU NAIR [REFERRED TO]
INDERMULL LONIYA VS. SUBORDINATE JUDGE, SECUNDERABAD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by the defendant as against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur in O. S. No. 50 of 1950. The suit was instituted by the respondent herein for recovery of the arrears of rent and possession of the plaint scheduled property or in the alternative for payment of the balance of security deposit. Her case was that the plaint scheduled property was granted on lease to the appellant herein on 26-4-1947 and that the lease was for a period or five years. She filed an application under S. 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for eviction of the appellant herein. The application was dismissed on 2-4-1949. She thereupon preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Guntur in C. M. A. No. 60 of 1949, and the learned Judge held that the provisions of the Rent Control Act did not apply, and consequently dismissed the appeal. The suit was therefore filed both for recovery of the arrears of rent and for possession of the plaint scheduled property. During the pendency of the suit, the lease had expired and me respondent filed I. A. No. 793 of 3952 for amendment of the plaint and for recovery of possession on that fresh ground, viz., the expiry of the lease. The amendment application was ordered on 1-8-1952.

(2.) The appellant herein contended that he was entitled to abatement of rent for stoppage of business and that he had also discharged the arrears of rent. He further pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the provisions of the Act apply.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge held that under the terms of the lease deed he was not entitled to abatement of rent for stoppage of business. He further found that the discharge pleaded by him was not true. On the construction of the lease, he came to the conclusion that the defendant was not a tenant of a building within the meaning of the Act, and that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was further held that by reason of his conduct and decision in C. M. A. No. 60 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur, the appellant was estopped from contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the sail. The defendant has consequently preferred the appeal,

Click here to view full judgment.

AMRITLAL N SHAH Vs. ALLA ANNAPURNAMMA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address