9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Subordinate Judge setting aside the order of the Rent Controller for eviction. 2. Interpretation of the proviso added by Madras Act VIII of 1951 in relation to default in payment of rent. 3. Application of Section 20 of Madras Act VIII of 1951 to pending proceedings. 4. Quashing of the Subordinate Judge's order and awarding costs. Analysis: 1. The application sought to quash the Subordinate Judge's order directing eviction under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act due to default in rent payment. Although there was no wilful default, a technical default was found by the Subordinate Judge. The petitioner relied on a new provision added by Madras Act VIII of 1951, which allowed for a reasonable time to pay rent if default was not wilful. As the rent was paid before the hearing, the default was deemed non-wilful, entitling the petitioner to dismissal of the eviction application. 2. The petitioner argued that Section 20 of Madras Act VIII of 1951 applied to the case, allowing pending applications or appeals to be disposed of as if the Act was in force when they were made. The respondent contended that Section 20 did not apply as the original eviction application and appeal were decided before the Act came into force. The Court acknowledged the lack of provision for certiorari in the Act but deemed the application to be a proceeding under the Act due to its superintendence jurisdiction over inferior tribunals. 3. The Court determined that Section 20 did apply as the appeal was considered pending as long as the application to quash the order was before the Court. Citing legal sources, the nature of a writ of certiorari was explained, emphasizing the Court's authority to set aside the decision in the appeal. The Court held that the appeal was pending under the Act, as any further proceedings could be taken in the matter. 4. Ultimately, the Court quashed the Subordinate Judge's order, considering the new Act's provisions. The petitioner was directed to pay costs as the order was unassailable when initially issued. The costs included an advocate's fee of Rs. 100. The judgment highlighted the application of the new Act's provisions and the interpretation of legal terms in determining the outcome of the case.
|
