RAVAL & CO. versus K. C. RAMACHANDRAN & ORS.

RAVAL & CO. versus K. C. RAMACHANDRAN & ORS.

During the subsistence of a contractual tenancy, a landlord is not entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent under section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is only after the contract of tenancy is lawfully determined that such an application can be made by the landlord. The Act does not confer a new right to the landlord to seek higher rent during the contract period; its protections are not solely for the benefit of tenants, but the right to fix fair rent is restricted as long as the contract exists.

Parties
Appellant/tenant: Raval & Co.; Respondents/landlords: K. C. Ramachandran & Ors.; Intervener: B.R. Agrawala
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 December 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court on Appeal From Madras High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (per majority)
Legal Topics
Fixation of Fair Rent, Contractual Tenancy, Statutory Tenancy, Landlord Tenant Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raval & Co.

Appellant/tenant

K. C. Ramachandran & Ors.

Respondents/landlords

B.R. Agrawala

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court on Appeal From Madras High Court

  1. 1 Whether a landlord under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent during the subsistence of a contractual tenancy
  2. 2 Meaning and applicability of the terms 'landlord' and 'tenant' under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

During the subsistence of a contractual tenancy, a landlord is not entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent under section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is only after the contract of tenancy is lawfully determined that such an application can be made by the landlord. The Act does not confer a new right to the landlord to seek higher rent during the contract period; its protections are not solely for the benefit of tenants, but the right to fix fair rent is restricted as long as the contract exists.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (per majority)

Orders

  • The appellant will pay the respondents' costs.
  • No order as to costs in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1968 per dissenting opinion.