9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 Government for the sale consideration as shown in the agreement. Later the appropriate authority passed an order communicating to the petitioner that the property stood vested in the Central Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 to sell. If the agreement does not contemplate vacant possession being given to the buyer, termination of the lease cannot be said to be a part of the agreed terms.&nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the premises at No.109 & 110, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 under their unauthorised occupation on or before 24.12.2004 and hand over possession to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 been returning the cheques tendered every month. Hence the rejection of the stay petition by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
