CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1996) 04 MAD CK 0079

N.V. Damodaran Nair vs The District Collector and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 9 April 1996 · Citation: (1996) 2 CTC 12

HON’BLE JUDGES
Srinivasan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 7809 of 1986

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 352 words

Srinivasan, J.—This petition is frivolous one. It is filed by a retired official of the Co-operative Societies Department. He was a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. While in service, he was allotted a house by the accommodation Controller, Salem on a provisional rent of Rs. 75 pjn. subject to fixation of rent. It was later fixed by the authorities at Rs. 200. The owner of the house filed a proceeding for recovery of the arrears as well as interest from the Accommodation Controller. In that proceeding. The Accommodation Controller raised all sorts of defences to defeat the claim of the owner, but, he failed. After a decree was passed by the court, in that proceeding, the Accommodation Controller has called upon the present petitioner and others similarly situated to pay the amounts due from them. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 3,910 due for the period from 1.8.1975 to 1.5.1977.

2.

In the present writ petition, the following contentions are urged. The first contentions is that the petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings instituted by the landlord of the house as against the Accommodation Controller and, therefore, the petitioner is not bound by the decree passed in the proceedings. This contention is absolutely without any merit. The petitioner is only an allottee and the tenant of the building vis-a-vis the landlord was only the Accommodation Controller and, therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party to such proceedings.

3.

The second contention is that the claim was barred by limitation and the petitioner cannot be asked to pay the amount. There is no merit in this contention also. Once it is decided by the civil Court that the landlord is entitled to get the amount from the Accommodation Controller, the latter is entitled to call upon the petitioner herein who was an allottee to pay the same which was payable by him for the occupation of the premises.

4.

I do not find any merit whatever in the wilt petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. No costs.