K R SARASWATHI Vs. V VADIVELU CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before me is the landlady. This petition arises under the Madras buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petitioner filed an application for possession of her premises on the ground that the same was required for the business carried on by her husband. The respondent-tenant contended originally that he was not the tenant, that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and that in any event, the application was not maintainable as the premises was only required by the landlady's husband. In the appeal before the Court of small Causes, the relationship of landlord and tenant was not canvassed. Both the rent Controller and the Court of Small Causes held that the petitioner required the premises bona fide for use and occupation. The Rent Controller however held, on the question of maintainability that the petition was maintainable by the landlady though the premises was required by the husband. But, on this question, the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court differed and held that the requirement by the landlady's husband of the premises belonging to the landlady will not be a ground for eviction under S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of Act 18 of 1960. He, therefore, dismissed the petition as being not maintainable. This revision petition is directed against the said order of the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause court.

(2.) THE Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to maintain her application as she is the landlady and that the word "landlady" or "landlord" in Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) would include a dependent or a near relative. The appellate Court however held with some hesitancy that the words "landlord or his son" appearing in the new Act are likely to indicate that the requirement must be for the use of the landlord or his son and for the use of no other person. The main question for determination is whether the amending Act 18 of 1960 has in fact made any deliberate change in the law as it existed before, Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of act 18 of 1960 reads as follows:--

(3.) WHAT exactly the word "landlord" in the old Act connoted was the subject-matter of two decision of our High Court. In Kolandaivelu Chettiar v. Koolavana chettiar, 1961-1 Mad LJ 184, Venkatadri J. held that the word "landlord" cannot be intended or treated as rigid, but elastic. The learned Judge held that the word would include a dependant as well. This decision was rendered after the passing of the new Act 18 of 1960. Under Sec. 35 of the new Act, the earlier Act XXV of 1949, was repealed and the statute obligated that all decisions to be rendered after the coming into force of the new Act shall be so done under the provisions of the new Act. Bearing this in mind, Venkatadri J. observed that he had to decide the case which had arisen under the old Act under the relevant provisions of the new Act of 1960. It is very clear that the word "landlord" was interpreted by venkatadri J. in the above decision in the light of the amended provisions of Act 18 of 1960, namely, S. 10 (3) provisions of Act 18 of 1960, namely, S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the new Act. The Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, fell into an error when he held that the decision reported in 1961-1 mad LJ 184 was given under the old Act. While respectfully agreeing with the interpretation given by Venkatadri J. in the above case, I would add that it would be indeed delimiting the fair sense and meaning of the word "landlord" in S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) in the new Act 18 of 1960 if it were to be interpreted as a rigid and inelastic word. At this stage the decision of veeraswami J. in Kangu v. Ahmedunnissa Begum, 1963-1 Mad LJ 97 may be usefully referred to. The learned Judge quoted with approval the decision of venkatadri J. in 1961-1 Mad LJ 184. He continued to say: