- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
A. Moses Pillai v. M.K Govindan
Concise Analytical Summary of the Judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant (plaintiff below) is the owner and the respondent (defendant below) the tenant of a house in Coimbatore. The suit sought possession of the house and recovery of Rs. 70 as arrears of rent up to the date of the plaint. The Rs. 70 was made up of Rs. 25 said to be the balance of rent for five months from 3 February 1943 to 3 July 1943 and Rs. 45 said to be rent for the period 3 July 1943 to 3 August 1943.
The plaint admitted that for the period 3 February 1943 to 3 July 1943 the defendant paid Rs. 40 per month, while the plaintiff claimed he was entitled to Rs. 45 per month for those months and therefore sought the balance of Rs. 25. The District Munsif of Coimbatore dismissed the suit; an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore was also unsuccessful. The present matter is a second appeal confined to the claim for rent because eviction was conceded to be barred by the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941 (applicable to Coimbatore from 17 March 1942).
The parties had executed a "house rent chit" on 4 February 1942. Its principal terms provided for a one-year tenancy terminating on 3 February 1943 at Rs. 40 per month, and included the following stipulation: "If I fail to deliver possession to you of the house within the prescribed period, I am from the date of such lapse bound to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 45 a month until possession is delivered to you." It was common ground that by this clause the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 45 per month after 3 February 1943.
Rent at Rs. 40 per month was in fact paid for five months from 3 February to 3 July 1943. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff had accepted rent at that rate without protest. The Subordinate Judge was later asked for a finding on whether those receipts were on protest; he returned a finding that the plaintiff received those amounts on protest. That factual finding was treated as final and not challengeable in the second appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the stipulation in the rent chit that rent would be Rs. 45 per month after 3 February 1943 is enforceable in the face of Clause 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941, which permits an increase in rent only where additions, improvements or alterations (other than ordinary repairs) have been carried out at the landlord's expense since the rent was fixed.
- Whether the critical date for determining the permissibility of a rent increase under the statutory provision is the date on which the agreement to increase was made or the date on which the increased rent becomes effective (i.e., when the stipulation comes into operation).
- Whether a composite contract (one part valid and another part invalid by reason of statute) can be enforced in part — specifically, whether the higher-rent stipulation can be severed and enforced while earlier terms remain in force.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's (Defendant's) Arguments — as presented in the opinion
- Clause 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941 is peremptory and permits an increase in rent only where specified additions/improvements have been carried out at the landlord's expense since the fixation of rent; therefore the stipulation for Rs. 45 after 3 February 1943 is unenforceable.
- The decisive date for Clause 7(a) is when the increase comes into actual operation, not the date of the agreement; the court of appeal decision in Goldsmith v. Orr supports the proposition that an increase is effective at the date it becomes operative.
Appellant's (Plaintiff's) Arguments — as presented in the opinion
- Counsel for the appellant attempted to distinguish Goldsmith v. Orr on the ground that the English statute considered there contained the express words "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary," whereas Clause 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order does not contain such words; hence the English authority should not apply.
- Counsel further argued that where a single contract provides for one rent for a specified period and a higher rent thereafter, it is not permissible to treat the latter portion as invalid while sustaining the former — i.e., the contract should be considered indivisible and not susceptible to partial invalidation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Goldsmith v. Orr (Court of Appeal) | Held that, for the purposes of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1919 (S.4(i)), a rent increase occurs at the date when the increase becomes effective, not at the earlier date when an increase may have been agreed upon between the parties. | The court accepted the principle that the crucial date is when the agreed increase comes into operation. The court relied on this to treat the stipulation for Rs. 45 as an increase coming into operation after the Madras Order was effective and therefore governed (and restricted) by Clause 7(a). |
| Chandu v. Sankaran (Leach C.J. and Krishnaswami Ayyangar J.) | Interpreted S.20 of the Malabar Tenancy Act and rejected the argument that the absence of the words "notwithstanding any contract" meant that prior contracts were preserved; described statutory language as "plain and peremptory" and held it sufficient to nullify prior contracts where intended. | The court used this authority to support the view that Clause 7(a)'s peremptory language suffices to indicate legislative intent to interfere with and limit contractual rights (even those created before the Order) without the need for a specific "notwithstanding" formulation. |
| Wilcock v. Booth (Divisional Court) | Contain observations that, in construing emergency statutes restricting ordinary contractual rights, courts should first look to plain meaning and should not needlessly extend such statutes beyond the particular mischiefs they address. | The court said that Wilcock v. Booth and its observations do not assist the present question: Clause 7(a) was regarded as clear and unambiguous, so the general caution in Wilcock about avoiding undue extension of emergency statutes did not alter the statutory meaning or application here. |
| Baul Chandra Chakravarti v. Nistarini Debi | Decision turned on provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 (specific statutory context). | The court stated that this case turned on the Bengal Tenancy Act and did not lay down any principle applicable to the present context under the Madras House Rent Control Order; therefore it was not invoked as authority for the appellant's position. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by setting out the operative contractual clause and Clause 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941, which provides (in the court's quoted language) that after the commencement of the Order an increase in rent is permissible only where some addition, improvement or alteration (not being necessary repairs or usual repairs) has been carried out at the landlord's expense since the rent was fixed.
The court characterized the language of Clause 7(a) as peremptory and restrictive: it permits an increase in rent only in the specific contingency described and does not permit an increase in any other circumstances. Because the stipulation for higher rent in the rent chit could only come into operation after 3 February 1943 — by which time the Madras Order was in force in Coimbatore — the court considered whether Clause 7(a) precluded enforcement of that stipulation.
The court accepted the reasoning in Goldsmith v. Orr (as relied upon by the defendant) that the relevant date for assessing whether an increase of rent is permissible under a statute is the date when the increase becomes effective, not the earlier date when the parties agreed to the increase. The appellant's attempt to distinguish Goldsmith v. Orr by reference to differing statutory wording was rejected: the court held that statutory effect can be given notwithstanding the absence of the express words "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary" and that Clause 7(a)'s plain language itself manifests the legislature's intention to override contractual stipulations that would produce an increase outside the single permitted contingency.
To reinforce this principle, the court cited Chandu v. Sankaran, where a similarly plain and peremptory statutory provision had been held sufficient to nullify prior contractual rights despite the absence of express "notwithstanding" language. The court concluded that there is no fixed formula of words to indicate legislative intent to interfere with contractual rights; clear and peremptory language in the operative provision suffices.
The court considered the appellant's submission that a single contract containing both valid and invalid components should not be severed so that one part is enforced while the other is struck down. The court observed that such a rule holds in ordinary contractual law, but here the invalidity of the higher-rent stipulation is caused by the statute. Given the unequivocal statutory prohibition, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of Clause 7(a) and thereby to pay only the rent at the prior rate. The court therefore saw no obstacle to the defendant contending that the higher-rent clause was void by reason of the statute while the earlier contractual obligations remained enforceable to the extent consistent with the statute.
The court also took note of the Subordinate Judge's factual finding that the plaintiff received the Rs. 40 monthly payments on protest; that factual finding stood and was not open to challenge in the second appeal.
The court distinguished and effectively sidelined Wilcock v. Booth (observations about the construction of emergency statutes) as not illuminating the present question because Clause 7(a) was plain and unambiguous in its terms. Likewise, Baul Chandra Chakravarti v. Nistarini Debi was regarded as based on the Bengal Tenancy Act and not laying down any relevant principle for the present statutory context.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The second appeal is dismissed with costs. The plaintiff cannot sustain his claim for the larger rent of Rs. 45 per month for the period in question.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The stipulation for rent at Rs. 45 per month after 3 February 1943 is unenforceable under Clause 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941, and the defendant is liable only to pay rent at the rate obtaining prior to the coming into operation of the Order (i.e., the prior rate of Rs. 40 per month as applicable in this dispute).
- The court applied existing statutory interpretation principles and prior case law to reach this conclusion; the opinion does not announce or claim to establish a new broad precedent beyond the application of Clause 7(a) to the facts before it.
Judge's initials in the text: N.R.R (as appearing in the judgment).
JUDGMENT
The appellant in this second appeal is the owner, and the respondent is the tenant, of a house in Coimbatore. The suit was for obtaining possession of the house and for the recovery of Rs. 70 as arrears of rent due till the date of the plaint. Out of this amount, Rs. 25 was said to be the balance of rent due for five months from 3rd February 1943 to 3rd July 1943; and Rs. 45 was claimed as the rent which was payable from 3rd July 1943 to 3rd August 1943. It was admitted in the plaint that from 3rd February 1943 to 3rd July 1943 the defendant paid at the rate of Rs. 40 per month; but the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to Rs. 45 per month even for those five months and that was why he claimed Rs. 25 as the balance due in respect of that period. The learned District Munsif of Coimbatore dismissed the suit. An appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore was also unsuccessful. Hence, the present second appeal, which is confined to the claim for rent, the plaintiff conceding that the defendant cannot be evicted in view of the provisions of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941, which was made applicable to the district of Coimbatore from 17th March 1942.
The defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff what is described as a house rent chit on 4th February 1942, the principal terms of which are the following. The tenancy was in the first instance to last for one year and terminate on 3rd February 1943. During this period Rs. 40 per month was to be paid by way of rent. The defendant was to deliver possession of the house to the plaintiff on 3rd February 1943. Then occurs the following sentence, on which considerable reliance is placed on behalf of the plaintiff:
“If I fail to deliver possession to you of the house within the prescribed period, I am from the date of such lapse bound to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 45 a month until possession is delivered to you.”
It is common ground that by this clause the defendant agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 45 per month after 3rd February 1945.
As already stated rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 40 per month for five months from 3rd February to 3rd July 1943. The learned District Munsif held that rent at that rate was accepted by the plaintiff without protest. But as no finding was given by the learned Subordinate Judge, I called for a finding from him as to whether the receipt of Rs. 40 per month by the plaintiff was on protest or without protest. The learned Subordinate Judge has now returned a finding that the plaintiff received those amounts on protest. This being a finding of fact, is not challengeable in second appeal.
It is, however, argued by Mr. T.R Ramachandran, Counsel for the defendant-respondent, that the stipulation which I have set above, is unenforceable in view of Clause 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941, which runs as follows:
“After the commencement of this order an increase in rent shall be permissible only where some addition, improvement or alteration not included in necessary repairs or repairs which are usually made to houses in the local area has been carried out at the landlord's expense since the rent was fixed.”
The language of Clause 7(a) it peremptory and permits an increase in rent only where some addition, improvement or alteration such as is described in that clause has been carried out at the landlord's expense after the fixation of rent. It does not permit an increase in any other case. The stipulation as to the payment of rent of Rs. 45 per month could, under the rent chit come into operation only after 3rd February 1943, by which time the Madras House Rent Control Order was in operation in Coimbatore. In support of his argument, that the crucial date for the purpose of Cl. 7(a) is when the stipulation as to increase of rent comes into actual operation and not the date of the agreement itself, Mr. Ramachandran relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in Goldsmith v. Orr (1). Dealing with S. 4(i) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1919, Bankes L.J and Scrutton L.J (Warrington L.J dissenting) held that rent is increased within the meaning of that section at the date when the increase becomes effective, and not at any earlier date at which an increase has been agreed upon between landlord and tenant. Mr. J.S Vedamanickam, Counsel for the appellant, attempted to distinguish this case on the ground that the English statute contains the words “Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary” and that there are no similar words in Cl. 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order of 1941. This argument I am unable to accept. Even without the use of those words, the Legislature can indicate that its provisions shall apply notwithstanding that the parties contracted otherwise and in my opinion, there is such an indication in Cl. 7(a). The clause allows an increase only in one contingency which of course does not apply to the case before me. The obvious conclusion to draw from the language of Cl. 7(a) is that the legislature was intending to interfere with rights created by contracts whether entered into before or after the order and that on grounds of high policy it would prohibit any increase of rent save in the only case for which provision is made in the rest of the clause.
In Chandu v. Sankaran Leach C.J and Krishnaswami Ayyangar J. had occasion to deal with the language of S. 20 of the Malabar Tenancy Act which in several respects is similar to the language of S. 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941. S. 20 of the Malabar Tenancy Act provides that “no suit for eviction of a customary verumpattamdar, kuzhikanomdar, or kanamdar shall lie at the instance of his landlord except on the following grounds” and then follows an enumeration of those grounds. One of the arguments addressed in that case was that since the words “notwithstanding any contract” to the contrary did not occur in S. 20, the contracts which were entered into before the commencement of the Malabar Tenancy Act must be taken to have been saved. This argument was rejected and the learned Judges pointed out that the language used by the Legislature was sufficient to express its intention to nullify contracts previously entered into. They described the language employed in S. 20 of the Malabar Tenancy Act as “plain and peremptory,”—a description which seems to me to be quite appropriate and applicable to Cl. 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order. There is no particular formula or set language which the Legislature has to use in order to indicate that it intends to interfere with the contractual rights of parties. It is true that in several statutes the words suggested by Mr. Vedamanickam find a place. It cannot, however, be said that other language equally effective and equally clear cannot be employed for achieving and expressing the same intention.
The appellant's Counsel next referred to certain observations of the Divisional Court in Wilcock v. Booth (2) where Bray J. observed as follows:
“In construing these emergency statutes, regard must, of course, as in other statutes, first be had to the plain meaning of the statutes themselves as a matter of construction, but we think that, restricting as they do, the ordinary rights of individuals arising from their mutual contracts and relationships, the Acts should not be needlessly extended beyond the particular mischiefs which they are designed to avoid or remedy”.
The learned Judges were, in that case, dealing with S. 1, sub-sec. 1(c) of the Increase of Rent (Amendment) Act, 1919. Under that provision, it was obligatory on the part of a landlord seeking the eviction of his tenant to offer alternative house accommodation. It was argued that where the premises previously occupied consisted of a dwelling house and a shop, the landlord was under an obligation to offer alternative house accommodation and alternative shop accommodation and that it was not sufficient if he offered alternative house accommodation only. The observations I have set out above were made in rejecting that argument. I do not consider the decision in Wilcock v. Booth , or the observations in it as throwing any light on the question now at issue, as, in my opinion, the language of Clause 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941 is quite clear and unambiguous.
The decision in Baul Chandra Chakravarti v. Nistarini Debi (3), cited on behalf of the appellant turned on the provisions of Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 and lays down no principle which can be invoked in the present context.
Mr. Vedamanickam then argued that when there is a single contract providing for a certain rate of rent during a specified period and a higher rate of rent thereafter, it is not permissible to treat the former part as valid and the latter as invalid. It is quite true that if the matter rested in contract merely, it will not be permissible for a party to a contract to claim that a certain portion of it is invalid while the rest of it is valid since every part of the contract must be regarded as consideration for every other part. But here we have the legislature saying in unequivocal language that in contracts providing for rent it is not open to parties to stipulate for any rent higher than what was being collected prior to the coming into operation of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941. The invalidity of the stipulation as to the higher rate of rent arises by reason of the statute. In these circumstances I do not see why the defendant cannot contend that notwithstanding that he had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 45 per month after 3rd February 1943, he is entitled to the benefit of Clause 7(a) of the Madras House Rent Control Order, and that he is consequently liable to pay only at the rate obtaining prior to the coming into operation of the order.
The plaintiff cannot, therefore, sustain his claim for the larger rent and the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
N.R.RMadras House Rent Control Order
Alert