D. S. CHELLAMMAL ANNI versus NASANAN SAMBAN

D. S. CHELLAMMAL ANNI versus NASANAN SAMBAN

The removal of crop by the respondent was not to prevent due division and did not violate Section 7 of the Fair Rent Act. Although the respondent failed to deposit rent in court as required by Section 3(3), this engaged the discretion of the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 3(4)(b); failure to exercise such...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: D. S. Chellammal Anni; Respondent: Nasanan Samban
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 March 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From the Madras High Court Decision in Revision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Cultivating Tenants, Ejectment, Fair Rent, Revisional Jurisdiction, Discretion in Ejectment, Statutory Interpretation
Land Law Tenancy Law Cultivating Tenants Ejectment Fair Rent Revisional Jurisdiction Discretion in Ejectment Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. S. Chellammal Anni

Appellant

Nasanan Samban

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From the Madras High Court Decision in Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of crops by the tenant from the threshing floor amounted to a transgression of Section 7 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956
  2. 2 Whether failure to deposit rent in court disentitled the tenant to protection under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955
  3. 3 Whether the High Court could interfere with the discretion exercised by the Revenue Divisional Officer in revision

Ratio Decidendi

The removal of crop by the respondent was not to prevent due division and did not violate Section 7 of the Fair Rent Act. Although the respondent failed to deposit rent in court as required by Section 3(3), this engaged the discretion of the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 3(4)(b); failure to exercise such discretion owing to this fact was an incorrect legal approach. The High Court was justified in setting aside the ejectment order as the Revenue Divisional Officer committed a patent error of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.