PONNAMMAL PONNAMMAL Vs. N MUTHUSWAMY CHETTIAR :N MUTHUSWAMY CHETTIAR
LAWS(SC)-1994-12-79
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on December 05,1994

Ponnammal Ponnammal Appellant
VERSUS
N Muthuswamy Chettiar :N Muthuswamy Chettiar Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ARUMUGHA GOUNDER VS. ARDHANARI MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF U P VS. PYARL RAI [LAWS(ALL)-1997-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
AMARCHAND INDERCHAND VS. LEGAL HEIRS OF ANANDI DEVI JALAN [LAWS(GAU)-2017-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
THE MAHARAJA KISHANGARH SOMYAG, MILLS CO. (TRANS). LTD. VS. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR APPOINTED BY THE HONBLE COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-9-60] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In both the cases the point involved is whether a tenant inducted into possession by a court receiver could claim the benefit of the statutory protection even after the discharge of the receiver There was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Madras High court. Venkataraman, J. was of the view that a receiver when he leases out the properly he is acting only as a hand of the court. He is not acting as an agent of the party. Though his act will be binding on the person who may be ultimately declared to be the owner of the property.
(2.)Even on equity, the learned Judge pointed out thus:
"The court in appointing the receivers was expected to safeguard the property for the benefit of the parties to the action, in particular, the party 62 who might ultimately be found to be the true owner. The court was not expected in the process of appointing the receiver and directing him to lease it out to a tenant, to sell the land itself to the person who was thus let into possession of the land. If we were to hold the contrary now, on the interpretation of the Act, it would be an unwarranted interference with the rights of the parties and would be destructive of the principle that parties come to court for justice and for resolution of their mutual disputes and not for the very property being sold to a third party, who had no right whatever in the property. If the object of the appointment of a receiver was merely to preserve the property and secure a small income therefrom, it might be let out to persons who were willing to surrender possession of the property at the end of the prescribed period without any right to compensation for the superstructure which they might choose to put up at their cost and without any claim to purchase the land itself. "

(3.)The other learned Judge Justice Maharajan differed pointing out that there was a good deal of difference between receiver in English Law and Indian Law. In any event, having regard to the definition of the landlord' occurring under Section 2 (3 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 and the definition of 'tenant' occurring under Section 2 (4 of the said Act inasmuch as a receiver is entitled to collect the rent, the tenancy will be binding and as such the tenant could claim the benefit of Section 9 namely, the right to purchase the site on which the superstructure has been put up.
;


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