1951 (8) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ground on which eviction was ordered was default in payment of rent within the prescribed time. Though the facts make it abundantly clear that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant in the payment of rents, nevertheless, it cannot be said that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that there was a technical default in payment within the time prescribed. His order therefore was on his finding quite proper. But the learned counsel for the petitioner invokes in his aid a new provision inserted by Madras Act VIII of 1951 which amended the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. Under Section 9 of this Amending Act (VIII of 1981) the following proviso was added to Section 7 (2) namely, Provided t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tituted under the said Act. We see considerable force in the argument of Mr. Sastri that an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari or similar order made under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be described as a proceeding instituted under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Act provides for an appeal, but it does not provide for any further proceeding by way of revision or by way of certiorari to this Court. It may be straining the language of the enactment to say that an application for certiorari is instituted under that Act though it may by a process of devious reasoning be held that in one sense this application for a writ of certiorari must be deemed to be instituted under the Act, because though ther....