A V G P CHETTIAR AND SONS Vs. T PALANISAMY GOUNDER
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on May 08,2002

A.V.G.P.CHETTIAR Appellant
VERSUS
T.PALANISAMY GOUNDER Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

E PARASHURAMAN VS. V DORAISWAMI [LAWS(SC)-2005-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR MARWAH VS. DEEPAK SUNDER [LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
HAROLD JAMES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-197] [REFERRED TO]
YOUNG MEN CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION VS. HOLY MOTHER OF AUROBINDO ASHRAM [LAWS(GAU)-2009-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR YADAV VS. PRASHANT ARORA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
KOPPULA KOTAIAH VS. GUMMADI VASANTHA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2006-12-113] [REFERRED TO]
INDRANIL CHAUDHURI VS. WEST BENGAL COLLEGE SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(CAL)-2006-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
T PALANISAMY GOUNDER VS. A V G PONNUSAMY CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1998-11-159] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN MURTI VS. THANKAMMA SEBASTIAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION VS. CIPLA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1996-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
K BHUVANESH VS. RAKMAN BIBI [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-120] [REFERRED TO]
ST PETERS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH VS. FR ABRAHAM MATHEWS [LAWS(KER)-2011-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
SADASHIV MAHADEORAO POKLE VS. MAHESH BABAN POKLE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-5-46] [REFERRED TO]
DELFINA GOMES PINTO VS. SAFIABI WD/O SHAIKH ABDUL RAZAK [LAWS(BOM)-2003-8-157] [REFERRED TO]
R RAJENDRAN VS. M BHAWARLAL [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-293] [REFERRED TO]
M VAJRAVELU VS. V BALASUNDARAM [LAWS(MAD)-2010-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
S RAMAMOORTHI VS. MAHALINGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-338] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. SRI SWARNA AND COMPANY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
DEVAMMADAS VS. V RAMACHANDRAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-2005-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
INDUSTRIAL TRADE LINKS AND ORS. VS. D.S. AHUJLA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-107] [REFERRED TO]
NATHU RAM SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-263] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-275] [REFERRED TO]
PAUL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VS. ESTATE OFFICER LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-6-89] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND ORS. VS. ABDUL QAYUM AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-367] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJEET SINGH FOOD INSPECTOR VS. STATE OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
JHANWAR LAL PATWA VS. UDAY NARAYAN GOSWAMI AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2016-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NATH DHAMIJA VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2005-5-129] [REFERRED TO]
KATARIYA CLOTH EMPORIUM AND ORS. VS. PREMCHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-308] [REFERRED TO]
E. DAMODHARAN VS. TRIPLICANE ANNADHANA SAMAJAM [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-301] [REFERRED TO]
JUGAL KISHORE PANDEY VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO.5,GORAKSHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-175] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH SHIVAJI SUTAR VS. VISHWANATH CHINMAYA SHERIGAR [LAWS(BOM)-2013-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
SADASHIV MAHADEORAO POKLE VS. MAHESH BABAN POKLE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2005-1-132] [REFERRED TO]
HARVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2004-10-68] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIRAJ PRASAD @ GIRIRAJ SHARAN VS. BABULAL KASERA [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
SWARN SINGH VS. MANISH PRAKASH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-309] [REFERRED]
S RAJEEV, N PARAVOOR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1999-11-129] [REFERRED]
SATPAL SINGH VS. CHUNNI LAL [LAWS(SC)-2009-2-53] [REFERRED TO]
E PARASHURAMAN VS. DORAISWAMY [LAWS(SC)-2005-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
SATPAL SINGH VS. CHUNNI LAL [LAWS(SC)-2009-2-144] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION VS. CIPLA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1996-8-122] [REFERRED]
CHELLAPPAN VS. K.R.RAVI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-221] [REFERRED TO]
LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE JABBAR SINGH VS. APPELLATE RENT TRIBUNAL JODHPUR & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. G.V. MOHAN [LAWS(APH)-2014-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
K T KUBAL & COMPANY VS. MUJIBUR REHMAN HAJI ISRAR ALAM SIDDIQUI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-137] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI ATMANANDA MANAGING TRUSTEE VS. NITHYANANDA SWAMI FOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-194] [REFERRED TO]
R. BALASUNDARAM VS. M. RAMALINGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-231] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SRI NACHIAR DEVASTHANAM SRIVILLIPUTHUR VS. PATTU AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
R.V. GURUPATHAM AND ANOTHER VS. MRS. TAIBA KHANUM AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS VS. LACHHMAN SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-12-271] [REFERRED]
PRAVEEN SHARMA (SINCE DECEASED) AND OTHERS VS. RAVI KUMAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI JABBAR SINGH VS. APPELLATE RENT TRIBUNAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-7-218] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PARSHAD VS. TRILOK CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-203] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT SINGH MINHAS VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-2003-4-175] [REFERRED]
RAJ PAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2005-8-140] [REFERRED]
GURKIRAN GHUMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1998-1-266] [REFERRED]
MALKIAT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1998-9-205] [REFERRED]
JOGINDER PAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1997-4-196] [REFERRED]
RAJ PAL VS. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-1995-11-198] [REFERRED]
OM PARKASH KAKYALIA VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-1994-3-97] [REFERRED]
M.SELVARAJ VS. ARULMIGU ARUNACHALESWARAR THIRUKKOIL [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
JAN ALAM VS. REKHA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
K. KUMAR VS. MAHABOOMARIAM BEEVI [LAWS(MAD)-2023-3-87] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LIMITED VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-138] [REFERRED TO]
K. LOKANATHA RAO VS. E.N. HARINATH SINGH [LAWS(MAD)-2023-9-156] [REFERRED TO]
A V G P CHETTIAR AND SONS VS. T PALANISAMY GOUNDER [LAWS(SC)-2002-5-44] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Ruma Pal, J. - (1.)This is an appeal filed by tenants against an order passed by the High Court at Madras upholding the decision of the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the appellants under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control Act) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.)The appellants have assailed the decision of the High Court primarily on three grounds:
i) that the suit premises belongs to a religious charitable Trust and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the suit premises, and

ii) that there was no relationship of tenants and landlord between the appellants and the respondent and

iii) the denial of the respondent's title by the appellants was bona fide and as such the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to try or determine the suit.

(3.)Before considering the submissions of the parties, the background in which the issues before us arise needs to be stated.


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