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 amendment excluding tenancies of land owned by municipal councils from the protection of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 was unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether that exclusion operated retrospectively to pending and subsisting tenancies and took away any vested or accrued rights of the tenant; (iii) whether the registered lease stipulation requiring removal of the superstructure and delivery of vacant possession, failing which the superstructure would vest in the municipality, was saved by the proviso to Section 12 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922.
Issue (i): Whether the amendment excluding tenancies of land owned by municipal councils from the protection of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 was unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The exclusion of lands owned by municipal and other public authorities was held to rest on a rational basis. Public bodies and private landlords were not similarly situated, and the Legislature was entitled to treat them as a distinct class in view of the public purpose served by such bodies and the inconvenience caused in the working of the Act. The right asserted by the tenant under the Act was characterised as a statutory privilege and not property. The amendment was therefore treated as a permissible legislative classification and as a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public.
Conclusion: The challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 failed, and the exclusion of municipal lands was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the exclusion of municipal lands operated retrospectively so as to affect pending and subsisting tenancies and any vested or accrued rights of the tenant.
Analysis: The Court held that the tenant had no vested or accrued right merely because the Act had once been extended to Salem. The right under Section 9 was contingent upon the landlord first instituting ejectment proceedings and the tenant then applying within the prescribed time. Until those contingencies occurred, the tenant had only a hope or expectation, not a perfected right. In the context of a remedial statute of this nature, the amendment was intended to govern the field as amended and to exclude municipal lands from its operation notwithstanding prior tenancies.
Conclusion: The exclusion operated retrospectively against the tenant, and no vested or accrued right survived.
Issue (iii): Whether the registered lease stipulation requiring removal of the superstructure and delivery of vacant possession, failing which the superstructure would vest in the municipality, was saved by the proviso to Section 12 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922.
Analysis: The Court treated the stipulation as one relating to the erection and fate of the building under a registered lease and applied the later and broader line of authority on the proviso to Section 12. A covenant by which the tenant agrees that no compensation shall be payable, or that the building shall vest in the landlord on expiry of the lease, was regarded as falling within the proviso where the bargain shows that the tenant did not build in the hope of statutory protection. The second lease was also treated as an independent arrangement on concessional rent with different terms, reinforcing the contractual exclusion of compensation.
Conclusion: The stipulation was saved by the proviso to Section 12 and was binding on the tenant.
Final Conclusion: The tenant failed on the constitutional challenge and on the claim to statutory protection against eviction, while the municipality's contractual and possessory rights were substantially upheld, subject to the modified relief on mesne profits and possession granted by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory protection that arises only upon contingent statutory steps is not a vested or accrued right, and a registered lease covenant governing the fate of a superstructure on expiry of the lease can be enforced if it falls within the proviso protecting stipulations as to the erection of buildings.
TaxTMI 
