TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.2233 of 2004 in C.M.A. No.168 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. 2.The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner is a tenant in the ground floor of the building situated at Door Nos.109 and 110, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. The area occupied by the petitioner is 800 Sq.ft. approximately. The landlord of the building entered into an agreement on 30.03.1989 with third party for sale of the said building for a sum of Rs.26 lakhs. The appropriate authority constituted under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act ("Act" in short), initiated proceedings and purchased the building. The appropriate authority ordered the building to be purchased by the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buildings owned by the Union Government from its purview, by reason of the fact that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, would become applicable to this building on and after an order in respect of that building was made under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a consequence of which order the building vests in the Union of India, the State law governing eviction will cease to apply to this building. An order made under section 269UD and other provisions of the Income-tax Act does not always have the effect of depriving a tenant of his tenancy rights. As pointed out by the apex court in the case of C.B.Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 that would depend upon the terms of the agreement t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner also sent a reply dated 18.11.2004 stating that the petitioner is a statutory tenant and the said statutory status acquired during the period prior to the purchase of the property by the respondent and hence all the rights under the Rent Control Act have accrued in their favour and the said accrued rights could not be taken away even by the Legislature. The respondent, by order dated 07.12.2004 in C.No.CC-II/289(2)/89-90, passed an order and held as under:- "For the reasons stated above I am satisfied that a portion in the public premises viz. Door No.109 110 Anna Salai, Chennai-2 is in unauthorised occupation of M/s.Adair Dutt Co. India P. Ltd. Accordingly, I direct the above Company to vacate the said portion in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, by order dated 23.12.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Lower Court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, by declining to grant stay and the balance of convenience is very much on the side of the petitioner. Further it is submitted that the petitioner could not be termed as "Unauthorised Occupant". It is also his submission that the Lower Court dismissed the C.M.P. on the ground that the due procedure as envisaged under the order had been followed and that the petitioner had not paid the rents due on the premises. But the petitioner had been meticulously tendering the monthly rents due by cheque and the respondent had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
