Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Indian Case Summary

V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs Yesodai Ammal on 23 August, 1979 – Case Summary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In the case of V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs Yesodai Ammal, decided by the Supreme Court of India on August 23, 1979, the court was confronted with a significant issue concerning the eviction of tenants under the Rent Control Acts. The case revolved around the necessity of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for eviction under any State Rent Control Act.

Facts of the Case

The respondent, Yesodai Ammal, filed an application against the appellant, V. Dhanapal Chettiar, under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, citing personal necessity. The Rent Controller dismissed her petition, stating that her requirement was not genuine. The Appellate Court, while acknowledging the respondent’s personal necessity, upheld the dismissal on the grounds that a notice to quit was necessary and the one given by her was not in accordance with the law. The Madras High Court, in revision, held that a notice to quit under Section 106, T.P. Act was not necessary.

Issues Before the Court

The primary issue before the court was whether a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary for eviction under any State Rent Control Act. This issue arose due to the divergence of opinion among various High Courts in India and even within the Supreme Court’s own decisions.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The court observed that the various State Rent Control Acts significantly encroach upon the field of freedom of contract. They do not permit the landlord to terminate his relationship with the tenant merely by serving a notice to quit. Despite the notice, the tenant continues to enjoy all the rights of a lessee and is deemed to be under all the liabilities, such as payment of rent, in accordance with the law.

The court held that the requirement of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act does not arise when the State Rent Acts provide the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted. If the State Rent Act requires a particular type of notice to get a particular kind of relief, such a notice will have to be given. However, it is not obligatory to found the proceeding on the basis of determination of the lease by issuing a notice in accordance with Section 106, T.P. Act.

The court concluded that the High Court was correct in its view that no notice to quit was necessary under Section 106 of the T.P. Act to enable the landlord to get an order of eviction against the tenant. The court emphasized that the law should be uniform across all states, i.e., a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not necessary for eviction under any State Rent Control Act.