High CourtsSingle Bench(1951) 07 MAD CK 0024

V.M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar vs Rahman Baig and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 18 July 1951 · Citation: AIR 1953 Mad 173 : (1952) 65 LW 158 : (1952) 1 MLJ 61

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subba Rao, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 7915 of 1950

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 349 words

Subba Rao, J.—This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari and for quashing the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore made in

appeal against the order of the Kent Controller, Vellore.

2.

The petitioner is the owner of the building. He rented it out to the respondent on a monthly rental of Rs. 16-8-0 in the year 1944, and he had

taken an advance of Rs 33. For the month of March 1949 the tenant did not pay the rent before the last day of April, but on 31st May 1949 he

sent a sum of Rs. 33 towards the rent for those two months. The petitioner filed the application before the Rent Controller for evicting the

respondent on the ground amongst others that he did not pay the rent for the month of March before the end of April. Among other contentions the

respondent raised the plea that the petitioner consented to certain alterations to the house to be made by the respondent by spending the money

from and out of the rent payable by him, and that pursuant to that arrangement he was taking steps for getting the repairs done. Later on, having

come to know that the petitioner was taking steps to evict him, the respondent sent the money before the end of May.

The learned Subordinate Judge on the materials placed before him found that because of that arrangement the respondent kept the rent for one

month and that when he found a change in the attitude of the landlord he remitted that amount. If there was an arrangement between the landlord

and the tenant in and by which the rent of any particular month was to be appropriated or spent in a particular manner, it cannot be said that the

rent for the month was due within the meaning of Section 7 . I cannot therefore say that there is an error of law apparent on the record or that the

Subordinate Judge acted without jurisdiction.

3.

The application is therefore dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without costs.