SA. RAMACHANDRAN versus S. NEELAVATHY

SA. RAMACHANDRAN versus S. NEELAVATHY

Since the appellant's application under Section 9 was rejected as being beyond time, he cannot be said to have waived his statutory right to object to the irregularity or illegality in institution of the eviction suit for want of notice under Section 11; compliance with Section 11 is a mandatory condition precedent, and its non-compliance renders the suit liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

Parties
Appellant: S. A. Ramachandran; Respondent: S. Neelavathy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 8760 of 1994 / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 5.4.94 of the Madras High Court in S.a. No. 52 of 1990
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and order of High Court set aside; trial court and appellate court judgments restored; respondent's suit dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Waiver of Statutory Right, Conditions Precedent to Suit, Tenant's Right to Object, Eviction, Notice Requirement Before Suit
Rent Control Law Landlord Tenant Law Waiver of Statutory Right Conditions Precedent to Suit Tenant's Right to Object Eviction Notice Requirement Before Suit

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. A. Ramachandran

Appellant

S. Neelavathy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 8760 of 1994 / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 5.4.94 of the Madras High Court in S.a. No. 52 of 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was waiver of the tenant's statutory right to object to the suit for eviction for want of notice under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921
  2. 2 Whether rejection of application under Section 9 due to delay amounts to waiver of right under Section 11

Ratio Decidendi

Since the appellant's application under Section 9 was rejected as being beyond time, he cannot be said to have waived his statutory right to object to the irregularity or illegality in institution of the eviction suit for want of notice under Section 11; compliance with Section 11 is a mandatory condition precedent, and its non-compliance renders the suit liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and order of High Court set aside; trial court and appellate court judgments restored; respondent's suit dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Trial court and Sub-ordinate judge (Appellate court) judgments restored.
  • Respondent's eviction suit dismissed.