TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its earlier order under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) whether the amended Madras City Tenants' Protection Act applied to the pending tenant's claim so as to treat the respondent as a religious institution and bring the proceedings to an end.
Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its earlier order under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
Analysis: Review lies where there is discovery of new and important matter, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record. Such error must be manifest and self-evident and cannot be one that requires elaborate argument or fresh re-hearing. The Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was entitled to correct the apparent wrong, particularly because the relevant amended statutory provisions were not available for consideration earlier and the matter required application of the amended law to the pending proceedings.
Conclusion: The review was maintainable and the High Court did not act without jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing it.
Issue (ii): whether the amended Madras City Tenants' Protection Act applied to the pending tenant's claim so as to treat the respondent as a religious institution and bring the proceedings to an end.
Analysis: The materials, including oral and documentary evidence and the trial court's finding, established that the respondent was a Roman Catholic Mission and therefore a religious institution within Section 1(f) as amended. The amendment, which withdrew the tenant's benefit under Section 9 in respect of lands belonging to religious institutions, took effect before execution of the sale deed. As the sale deed had not been executed when the amendment came into force, the tenant's proceeding was still pending and the decree had not attained final fruition. The Court held that the amended provision operated upon the pending matter and rendered the tenant's claim unenforceable.
Conclusion: The amended Act applied, the respondent was covered by the exemption for religious institutions, and the tenant's claim could not survive after the amendment came into force.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's order allowing review and applying the amended tenancy legislation was sustained, and the tenant's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A review may be allowed for an error apparent on the face of the record, and a statutory amendment affecting pending proceedings can extinguish a tenant's claim before execution of the conveyance where the protected institution falls within the amended exemption.
TaxTMI 
