Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad270
1. The tenant has filed this revision petition and he is aggrieved that the appellate Court and the court of revision have upheld the plea of the respondent that the petitioner had committed willful default in payment of the rent.2. The rent receipts filed in this case show that the petitioner had been irregular in the payment of rents and that there has been a delay of two to three months on several occasions. On 22-4-1969 the respondent issued a notice Exhibit A-1 determining the tenancy and complaining of arrears of rent for three months. On 12-5-1969 the petitioner sent a money order for three months' rent but it was refused. It is unnecessary to refer to the subsequent money orders.3. On these facts the Rent Controller was reluctant to uphold the plea of willful default; but the appellate Court and the Court of Revision have accepted that this is a case of willful default.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of Venkatadri, J. in Mahaboob Bibi v. Ambrose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ357
Ramanujam, J.1. The plaintiff who filed a suit for a declaration that he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit lands as such tenant and was successful in the trial Court but failed in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. The trial Court held that the transaction under Exhibit A-1 was a lease. But the lower appellate Court, held it to be a licence. The question in this second appeal is as to whether, the transaction under Exhibit A-1 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant is a lease or a licence.2. It appears that the suit land belongs to one Ellamman temple and that it is a garden where Jasmine plants have been raised. The plaintiff was put in possession of the flower garden for a period of ten years on 5th May, 1956, for an annual payment of Rs. 350. As the plaintiff committed defaul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ623
S. Genesan, J.1. The tenant has filed this revision petition and he is aggrieved that the appellate Court and the Court of revision have upheld the plea of the respondent that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of the rent.2. The rent receipts filed in this case show the petitioner had been irregular in the payment of rents and that there has been a delay of two to three months on several occasions. On 22nd April, 1969, the respondent issued notice Exhibit A-1 determining the tenancy and complaining of arrears of rent for three months. On 12th May, 1969, the petitioner sent a money order for three months rent but it was refused. It is unnecessary to refer to the subsequent money orders.3. On these facts the Rent Controller was reluctant to uphold the plea of wilful default; but the appellate Court and the Court of revision have accepted that this is a case of wilful default.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of Venkatadri, J., in Mahabo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad234
1. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff based his title to the suit property on a revenue sale held on 4-12-1961 in which he was the highest bidder and as a result of which a sale certificate had been issued in his favor. It is also the plaintiff's case that in pursuance of the revenue sale possession of the property was actually handed over to him by the revenue sale possession of the property was actually handed over to him by the revenue authorities on 24-9-1965 as per Ex. P.3, that subsequent to such delivery of possession the defendant is attempting to trespass on the suit property and that therefore he is constrained to file the present suit for a declaration of title and for injunction.2. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the revenue sale on which the plaintiff relies was inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]87ITR202(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a registered firm carrying on business in cement and money-lending under the name and style of M. S. P. Nadar Sons, Virudhunagar. It also owned large extent of land in Yercaud wherein it cultivated coffee, cardamom, etc. On May 14, 1957, it purchased 520 acres of forest land in Yercaud for Rs. 1,00,000. Between 1957 and 1959 it sold 138.12 acres of land out of the total extent purchased for Rs. 73,149, as they were in outlying areas and not contiguous to the estates already owned by the assessee. The remaining extent of land which was contiguous to the existing plantation area was cleared by felling and removing the trees therein so as to facilitate cultivation of coffee and cardamom, etc. In the process of clearing, the assessee had to cut 987 sandal-wood trees after getting the permission from the District Forest Officer in December, 1960. The assessee incurred expenditure by way of wages for clearing and uprooting the trees and entered in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad152
ORDER1. The petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1606 of 1968 is the tenant and the respondents therein are the landlords. The tenant filed H. R. C. No. 492 of 1965 under Section 4 of Madras Act 18 of 1960, for fixation of fair rent in respect of premises No. 217 Govindappa Naicken St., G. T. Madras, on the ground that the existing rent was excessive. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent of Rs. 542 per mensem. The tenant filed H. R. A. 806 of 1965 to the Court of Small Causes, Madras and the appellate Judge confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Against the said decision, C. R. P. 1606 to 1968 was filed by the tenant, while the landlords filed C. R. P. 2206 of 1968, objecting to the low rent fixed by the courts below. The above civil revision petitions came up for hearing on 27-11-1970. By that time the Supreme Court in K. C. Nambiar v. IV Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras, : [1970]1SCR906 had struck down Rule 12 of the Rules made under Section 34 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ446
ORDERV.V. Raghavan, J.1. 'In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K.C. Mambiar v. IVth Judge of Court of Small Causes, Madras : [1970]1SCR906 striking down, Rule 12 of the Rules, made under Section 34, the finding of the Appellate Authority on the question, of costs of construction is set aside and the appellate authority will take this on his file and submit a finding on the cost of construction. The Appellate Authority is entitled to take fresh evidence adduced by the parties. Time for submission of finding four months'. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the High Court the IV Judge, of the Court of Small Causes submitted the following finding:2. Finding submitted in obedience to-the order of Hon'ble High Court in. C.R.Ps. Nos. 1606 and 2206 of 1968 dated 27th November, 1970. The Hon'ble High Court has observed that in. view of the judgment of the Supreme Court striking down Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Madras Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the finding al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]87ITR568(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a dealer in paper. During the assessment year 1960-61 he paid a bonus of Rs. 39,541 to his employees and claimed it as allowance under Section 10(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the bonus paid by the assessee which is equivalent to 13 months' salary was excessive and not justified by the profits derived by him in the assessment year, and disallowed a sum of Rs. 19,000 from and out of the total claim of the assesseeon the ground that the bonus equivalent to six months' salary can alone be justified.2. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the disallowance of a portion of his claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 19,000 from the assessee's total claim. There was a further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal held that the claim of deduction for Rs. 39,541 which is equivalent to about...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)IILLJ376Mad
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner employed the second respondent as his accounts clerk for a period of about five years. In June, 1967, the petitioner claims, the second respondent demanded certain amount by way of loan to go to Madras and to meet certain emergent requirements of his. This was refused, because the second respondent did not repay an earlier loan borrowed from the petitioner. Thereafter, it is said that the second respondent did not pay the money already due and abandoned the service with the petitioner. In or about 1969, the petitioner was confronted with a notice from the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, by which the second respondent demanded a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,002.30 falling under three heads: (1) retrenchment compensation, (2) notice pay for unlawful retrenchment of service, and (3) bonus for the year 1966-67 during which year the second respondent admittedly served the petitioner. The Labour Court entertained the petition filed by the second...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1973CriLJ548
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. These two appeals are connected and the point involved in the appeals is the same, Cri. Appeals Nos. 984 and 674 of 1970 are filed by the State against the order of the acquittal of the accused-respondent Nagappan in C.C. Nos. 5909 of 1969 and 11733 of 1969 on the file of the Third Presidency Magistrate. Madras, respectively.2. On 7.4.1969 a charge was framed against the accused for an offence under Section 381 I.P.C. in C.C. No. 5909 of 1969. The learned trial Magistrate passed judgment in that case as follows:Despite several adjournments none of the witnesses were produced and the police were also absent. Even the subpoenas issued for the witnesses were not returned and I have therefore, to take it that the prosecution has no evidence against the accused. I, hence, find the accused not guilty and acquit him of the charge under Section 381 I.P.C.3. Strangely, the same Magistrate re-entertained the complaint by the State and framed a charge in C.C. No. 11733 of 196...
Tag this Judgment!