Dismissed

C. Sundari Balaraman v. Ayanpuram Vanniyakula

Madras HC13 Jun 2016CRP/1270/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitions were dismissed as the High Court held no error was committed by the lower court in dismissing applications challenging the maintainability of suits filed by a Sangam claiming exemption under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Court noted the respondent must establish exemption during trial.

What did the court decide?

No Costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

C. Sundari Balaraman Vs Ayanpuram Vanniyakula — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.06.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1270 & 1271 of 2016

¶7

C.Soundari Balaraman ... Petitioner in CRP.No.1270/2016 Chandrammal ... Petitioner in CRP.No.1271/2016

¶8

¶9

Ayanpuram Vanniyakula Kshathriyar Sangam Rep., by its President Mr.G.Venkatesan Old.No.125, New No.224 Ayanavaram Chennai-600 023 ... Respondent in both cases

¶10

Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders of learned VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, passed in I.A.Nos.11225 of 2015 in O.S.No.7381 of 2012 and I.A.No.11226 of 2015 in O.S.No.19 of 2013 on 11.01.2016.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Mani For Respondent : Mr.P.B.Balaji *****

¶12

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶13

These revisions challenge the orders of learned VI Assistant City Civil

¶14

Judge, Chennai, passed in Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, passed in

¶15

¶16

I.A.Nos.11225 of 2015 in O.S.No.7381 of 2012 and I.A.No.11226 of 2015 in O.S.No.19 of 2013 on 11.01.2016.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

¶18

The respondent has moved O.S.Nos.7381 of 2012 and 19 of 2013 towards evicting its tenants. I.A.Nos.11225 of 2015 and 11226 of 2015 have been moved by petitioners/defendants on the premise that the respondent as a Sangam does not answer the description of a charitable trust and as such

¶19

would not be entitled to the exemption provided under Section 29 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and would only have to move a petition before the Rent Controller in keeping with such Act.

¶20

Petitioners/defendants have moved I.A.No.11225 of 2015 in O.S.No.7381 of 2012 and I.A.No.11226 of 2015 in O.S.No.19 of 2013 towards

¶21

decision of the maintainability of the suit. Against the dismissal of such applications, the petitioners/defendants have moved the present revisions.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in dismissing I.A.Nos.11225 of 2015 and 11226 of 2015, the Court below has held that the suits are maintainable. Learned counsel submits that such a decision could not

¶23

¶24

have been arrived at by the Court below.

¶25

This Court is of the view that no error stands committed by the Court

¶26

below. Of course, it would be for the respondent/plaintiff to establish that they are entitled to benefit of Section 29 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which provides for exemption from applicability of such Act. Such a position the respondent/plaintiff would be able to establish only when the suit is tried and negation of the suit at the initial stage would amount to shutting out the right of the respondent/plaintiff to establish their case.

¶27

Accordingly, these Civil Revision petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶28

13.06.2016

¶29

Index:yes/no Internet:yes To The VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai,

C.T.SELVAM, J

kpr

Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1270 & 1271 of 2016

¶34

13.06.2016

C. Sundari Balaraman v. Ayanpuram Vanniyakula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Sundari Balaraman v. Ayanpuram Vanniyakula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Assistant Engineer Vs S.Kumaresan

M.Balasubramani Vs Mrs.C.Suseela

V.R. Sukrappan Vs R. Kalisamy

K.Preetha Vs Neelakumar

Mahalakshmi Vs P.Hemkumar

P.Palani Gounder, Vs a.Sengodan