9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (12) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained a lease of the suit properties from defendants 2 to 5 for one year 1953-54. He further alleged that the 1st defendant was a prior lessee under a lease granted by defendants 2 to 5 for 1952-53. The 1st defendant is said to be a benamidar for the 6th defendant.' The plaintiff claimed possession from the 1st defendant as from a tenant holding over. Defendants 1 and 6 pleaded that they had been given a three-year lease from 1953-56 including the suit year. The plaintiff paid court-fee under Section 7, Clause (XI) (CC) of the Court Fees Act. 2. The contention raised by the 6th defendant was that the plaintiff was only a lessee from the owners of the property and if he sought to get possession from a former tenant holding over, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amending Act, Act VI of 1905. The effect of this amendment was clearly to take such suits out of clause (v). Paragraph (XI), therefore, excludes suits brought on the basis of title and only relates to a suit based on a contract of lease simpliciter A suit based on alleged relationship of land lord and tenant comes within Section 7 (XI) (cc) of the Court Fees Act. This clause is intended to cover all cases where the landlord seeks to recover the property from a person who has, been his tenant and whose tenancy has come to an end. The words 'including a tenant' etc.; after the word tenant amplify the meaning of the terms 'tenant' rather than restrict it. The Lower Court has based its decision upon a judgment of Bell, J. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould apply if such a suit were brought by a lessee, held that by force of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the word 'landlord' would cove lessee. The learned Judge referred to a decision the Madras High Court in Achayya v. Hanuman rayudu, ILR 14 Mad 269 (B). In that case plaintiff sought to recover possession of the leased to him by defendant No. 1 who was admittedly the Agraharamdar and the owner of the land. The defendant No. 2 claimed occupancy rights. An objection was raised that the lessee could sue to eject. The High Court held that as lessor the owner of the land was entitled to on proof of title, so could the lessee claim under him to obtain possession on proof of such title of his own lease. 5. This decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich case assignee or the transferee becomes the landlord himself by operation of law. All the rights of the landlord are transferred. Therefore if after assignment the transferee files a suit for ejecting would be regarded as a suit by a landlord a tenant. 7. Paragraph (XI) (cc) clearly contemplate there being a privity of contract of landlord tenant as between the parties to the suit. could not be any privity of contract between an original lessee and a subsequent lessee. It may be useful to Consider in this connection as to whether lessee's representative or assign could be regarded as tenant of the landlord. This question came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Vadapake Narashnham v. Dronamraju Seetha Ramamurthy, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
