J J LAL PVT LIMITED Vs. M R MURALI
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-83
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 08,2002

J.J.LAL PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
M.R.MURALI Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KUPPUSAMY VS. SURAJBAI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-213] [REFERRED TO]
A.V.SUBRAMANIA REDDIAR VS. PACHAIYAPPAN NAICKER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
NANESHWAR MARALKAR VS. ESMERALDO REGO FERNANDES [LAWS(BOM)-2021-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
G JAISURYA VS. HARISHANKER SANGHI [LAWS(APH)-2006-9-139] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT KUMAR DUBEY, S/O BIHARI LAL DUBEY VS. JYOTI VARYANI, W/O SHRI PRAKASHCHAND VARYANI [LAWS(CHH)-2016-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
JUGAL DENRE VS. GOUTAM DENRE [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-221] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIBAS GAGAR VS. DEBOJYOTI DAS [LAWS(SC)-2002-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA MISRA VS. PREMA SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-9-98] [REFERRED TO]
VICTOR FARMS PVT LTD VS. T KOMATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2006-10-148] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SAWNEY VS. SANTHOSH SAWNEY [LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SAWNEY S/O NAND LAL SAWNEY VS. SANTHSH SAWNEY W/O PRAN NATH SAWNEY AND ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-170] [REFERRED]
AGARWAL MINERALS GOA PVT LTD VS. ARCANGELA CABRAL RESIDENT OF AIVAOWADDO CARANZALEM IIHAS GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
M R MURALI VS. HEMALATHA MOHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-75] [REFERRED TO]
R.V. GURUPATHAM AND ANOTHER VS. MRS. TAIBA KHANUM AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
S. JOHN DE BRITTO VS. SREE GUNDLU MUNESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST [LAWS(KAR)-2021-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
MURAMALLA AMMANNA RAJU VS. MURAMALLA GANIRAJU [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASA RAJAKAMAL VS. NEELAMSETTI KATAJI RAO [LAWS(APH)-2002-6-165] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DAS MODI VS. LAXMIN BAI [LAWS(CHH)-2018-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA VS. RAJ KISHORI DIXIT [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA MAJUMDER VS. PACKARD EXPORTS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
SILVER JUBLEE DRYERS AND CLEANERS VS. HIRALAL NEMICHAND SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. AMIT ROY CHOUDHURY [LAWS(GAU)-2006-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
BANDEKAR BROTHERS PVT LTD VS. M S V G QUENIM [LAWS(BOM)-2009-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMLAL VYAS VS. INDERCHAND [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
JAYDEEP AND CO VS. MAHARAJA SALT WORKS CO LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2012-2-484] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: MAOOLI LAND DEVELOPERS AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-246] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHIKSHA TRADING SERVICES LTD. VS. WELS [LAWS(MAD)-2015-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
A. NARASIMHAN AND ORS. VS. ATHILAKSHMI AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
MYADI VS. RATNI [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-11-109] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIRAJ PRASAD @ GIRIRAJ SHARAN VS. BABULAL KASERA [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
M S Ummar Sahib VS. M P Stanes [LAWS(MAD)-2004-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
POTTI RAJESHWARI VS. QUADER MOHIUDDIN [LAWS(APH)-2010-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
M MAREMMA VS. D KRISHNAVENAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-140] [REFERRED TO]
TELUGU KRISHNA MOHAN VS. BOGGULA PADMAVATHI [LAWS(APH)-2009-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
DELFINA GOMES PINTO VS. SAFIABI WD/O SHAIKH ABDUL RAZAK [LAWS(BOM)-2003-8-157] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHESWAR BANERJEE VS. KESHARSHYAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2014-2-147] [REFERRED TO]
JABARULLAKHAN VS. LUCAS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-568] [REFERRED TO]
Sharada VS. Jayalakshmma and others [LAWS(KAR)-2011-1-245] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTILAL N. SHAH VS. NAGARATHNA MURTHY [LAWS(KAR)-2014-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
M BALAKRISHNAN VS. JEEVA MERCY KAMALA [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-128] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN LAL VS. LALA RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-4-238] [REFERRED TO]
PANJUM BIBI @ RAMJAN BIBI VS. NAJMA ALIM [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
A V G P CHETTIAR AND SONS VS. T PALANISAMY GOUNDER [LAWS(SC)-2002-5-44] [REFERRED]
JADUNATH JENA VS. HIRAMANI BEWA & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
T G BALASUNDARAM VS. JOTHIBAI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-88] [REFERRED TO]
DAVID MANTOSH VS. APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2013-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
THAKOR GOVAJI AMARSANG VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-201] [REFERRED TO]
SOBHA BISWAS VS. RANJIT LODH [LAWS(GAU)-2006-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
HAGE TARA VS. HAGE APPO [LAWS(GAU)-2006-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
SANTHOSH KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS VS. DEVENDER KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
FATIMABEE VS. KAMRUNISA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
DURVESH KUMAR VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL) DIV LKO AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-320] [REFERRED TO]
JUGAL KISHORE PANDEY VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO.5,GORAKSHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-175] [REFERRED TO]
HIMMAT SINGH VS. SAKTU RAM BHATNAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-141] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA SEN VS. GEETA BAI [LAWS(CHH)-2009-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
PARVATHI VS. GOWRI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2018-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR GUPTA VS. NARBADESHWAR SAHAY [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-2-78] [REFERRED TO]
J V BHOOPALAN VS. RAJAMANI CKAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2006-11-144] [REFERRED TO]
S. Vinod Kumar S/o Sri N. Sohanlal VS. Sri S.N. Shivanna S/o. C. Nagappa and S. Shekar S/o. M. Ganeshan [LAWS(KAR)-2010-11-96] [REFERRED TO]
DHALU RAM VS. JESSA RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2004-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
KEMPAHANUMIAH VS. ALLIED MOTORS [LAWS(KAR)-2012-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
BAPURAO SON OF MAHADEORAO PATMASE VS. NIRMALABEN WIFE OF RATILAL PANCHMATI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-248] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH SAFFIQUEUDDIN AND ORS. VS. GULEI @ GOLAP SAMAL AND 9 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
A R V Venkatesamy Naicker and Sons VS. V S Krishnamoorthy [LAWS(MAD)-2005-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
S DINAKAR VS. R RAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-201] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR YADAV VS. PRASHANT ARORA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOGAJI KUNVARJI VANZARA VS. ABDULREHMAN MOHMAD USMAN BASTAWALA DECEASED THRO HIS HEIRS [LAWS(GJH)-2002-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
FRANCISCO RODRIGUES VS. ANGELICA REBELLO [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA DEVI VS. BHAGAT RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2002-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
UMAKANTH PADHI VS. POORNACHANDRA PADHI [LAWS(APH)-2011-2-53] [REFERRED TO]
S. SELVA PANDIAN VS. P. JAWAHAR, THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI AND THE CHAIRMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-264] [REFERRED TO]
G.P. NURSERY AND PRIMARY SCHOOL VS. V. SEETHAPATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2020-5-91] [REFERRED TO]
CHARULATHA VS. MANJU [LAWS(KER)-2003-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN MURTI VS. THANKAMMA SEBASTIAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH BHAVANISHANKAR PEJAWAR VS. HITEX EMBROIDERY PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2005-8-183] [REFERRED TO]
BAL KRISHEN VS. J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL JAMMU [LAWS(J&K)-2023-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
A. SHAMEEM BAGUM VS. M.SHAHUL HAMEED [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-243] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMICHAND VS. PARASMAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-153] [REFERRED]
COMMODORE B Y WAD VS. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-94] [REFERRED TO]
PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE VS. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN GHOSALKAR [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
N. SWAMINATHAN VS. D. SOMASEKAR REDDY [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-435] [REFERRED TO]
G A PONNUSAMY VS. N SANTHANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
AZIMA BIVI VS. LOUIS SINNAYA AROKIASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-782] [REFERRED TO]
COMPETENT AUTHORITY, CALCUTTA VS. DAVID MANTOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2014-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRASINH BHARATSINH SARVAIYA VS. KIRITSINH BALVANTSINH JADEJA [LAWS(GJH)-2003-7-31] [REFERRED]
FERNANDO SEQUEIRA LOBO VS. JOSE E COELHO PEREIRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
KASHIBAI WAMAN PATIL VS. TAUKIR AHMED MOHAMMED HANIF KHAN [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
MAOOLI LAND DEVELOPERS AND ORS. VS. TAUKIR AHMED MOHAMMED HANIF KHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-1-151] [REFERRED TO]
YADAV MAHADU KOLI VS. SUMITRABAI POPATLAL SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-174] [REFERRED TO]
G RADHAKRISHNAN VS. S MAHENDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2015-1-121] [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL BIRLA VS. RAM PRAKASH SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2008-9-7] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The landlord respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant-appellants from the suit premises described as Door No. 244 and 264. Walltax Road, Chennai on the ground available under clause (1) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short), by applying to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. It was alleged in the application for eviction filed on 6th April, 1989 that the tenants did not pay the rent of premises Door No. 264 for January and Feb. 1989 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and for premises Door No. 244 for the month of February, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The tenants, in their written statement, denied their being defaulters and submitted that there was dispute as to the rate at which the rent was payable and also as to the quantum of arrears, though they were agreeable and always prepared to pay the rent at which it was previously paid but for the exaggerated and inflated demand of the landlords.
(2.)It appears that the suit premises are owned by the Municipal Corporation of Chennai and are held by the landlords as allottee of the Municipal Corporation. The landlords have further leased out the premises to the tenants (appellants before us). Thus, there are three persons associated with the suit premises - the Municipal Corporation, their allottees (i.e. the respondents) and further lessees inducted by the allottees i.e. the appellants. We are not concerned with any controversy between the Municipal Corporation and its allottees. The Municipal Corporation was never a party to the litigation and has sought for intervention at the hearing before this Court but the intervention is being denied for the reasons which we would be stating at the end of this judgment. We would, therefore, confine ourselves to the controversy arising for decision between the parties, before us and for that purpose, in this judgment, the respondents shall be referred to as 'landlords' and the appellants shall be referred to as 'tenants'.
(3.)In the written statement, the tenants confined themselves to denying their being defaulters and raising dispute as to the rate of rent and quantum of arrears. However, an anxiety for protecting their possession over the suit premises and zeal for giving a rebuff to the landlords, impelled them to file an additional counter in Sept. 1993, in addition to their counter filed by way of written statement in Feb. 1990. In the additional counter, it was submitted that the tenants had reliably learnt, on making enquiries from the Municipal Corporation of Madras, that long term lease was granted by the Corporation in favour of late M.B. Ramachandra Naidu, who expired in the month of March 1982. With his death, the lease came to an end. Even the term of lease by Municipal Corporation in favour of the landlord had expired and the Corporation had taken steps to create a lease directly in favour of the actual occupants and the respondents had agreed to pay the rent to the Municipal Corporation w.e.f. 1-4-1982 and onwards. For these reasons, it was submitted that the proceedings for recovery of possession from the tenants were not maintainable. This additional counter, far from defending the tenants, has proved to be a potent troubleshooter for the tenants and the bone of contention in this litigation as will be noticed shortly hereinafter. We may hasten to add to the factual statement that sometime after the month of March 1993, one of the partners of the tenants was delivered a notice by the Municipal Corporation which read as under :-
"NOTICE

Corporation of Chennai

Land Revenue Department.

Ref : 8/1737/93 Date :

In your letter dated 26-3-1993 you have confirmed that you are occupying the premises No. 244, Walltax Road, (4110 sq. ft.) belonging to Corporation of Chennai from 1-4-1982.

The lease period has already elapsed. Moreover you have agreed to pay the lease amount by your letter dated 26-3-1993.

Since you are enjoying the premises belonging to Corporation of Chennai the following amount is due from you :

(1-4-1982 to 31-3-1989)

prior to 1989 162.96

1989-90 35962.50

1990-91 95900.00

1991-92 113162.00

____________

245187.46

Hence you have to pay the amount of Rs. 245187.46 before 15-4-93 to the Corporation Treasury, failing which the above premises belonging to Corporation of Chennai will be auctioned to public.

For Commissioner

To

Surendar Kumar Chouraria,

40, Ormes Road,

Kilpauk, Madras-10.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.