Summary
Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 provides that every tenant shall on ejectment be entitled to be paid compensation for the value of building which may have been erected by him. Section 9 of the Act, provides that a tenant who is entitled to compensation under s. 3 and against whom a suit for ejectment is instituted may apply for an order that the landlord may be directed to sell the land to him for the price to be fixed by the court.
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had ob- tained a lease of vacant land in the city of Madras from the ancestors of the respondent-landlords in 1924 and construct- ed superstructures thereon for carrying on business. The business was, however, discontinued in 1964. A partition suit was filed and the first appellant was appointed receiv- er. Before a final decree could be passed in that suit, the respondent-landlords served notices on the heirs of the original tenant terminating the lease and later filed eject- ment suits against them. Only defendant No. 4 (2nd appel- lant) and defendant No. 11, advocate receiver (1st appel- lant) contested the ejectment suits. Ex-parte proceedings were taken against the other defendants. Defendant No. 4 filed an application in each of the ejectment suits claiming the benefit of s. 9 of the Act, with a prayer to the court for directing the landlords to sell the land to the defend- ants and to appoint a commissioner to ascertain the price.The Trial Court rejected the application on the findings that the defendants were not in occupation of the property, for they had let out the entire building to sub-tenants except a small portion thereof where the account books were kept, and that the defendants did not require any portion of the land for running their business or for the convenient enjoyment of the superstructures.735 On appeal by defendants 4 and 11 under s. 9A of the Act, the appellate authority held that as the defendants had not been in possession and occupation of the premises, they were not entitled to the benefit of s. 9.The High Court affirmed the findings of the courts below and dismissed the revision petitions preferred by the appel- lants.Dismissing the appeals, this Court,HELD: Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protec- tion Act, 1921 confers a privilege on a tenant, against whom a suit for ejectment has been filed by the landlord to exercise an option to secure conveyance of only such portion of the demised land as would be necessary for his convenient enjoyment. It creates a statutory right to purchase land through the medium of the court on fulfilment of the condi- tions specified therein. It is not an absolute right, as the court has discretion to grant or refuse the relief for purchase of the land on the facts of a particular case.[743G-H]S.M. Transport (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamingal Mutt, [1963]Suppl. 1 SCR 282, referred to.The policy underlying s. 9 is directed to safeguard the eviction of those tenants who may have constructed super- structures on the demised land so that they may continue to occupy the same for the purpose of their residence or busi- ness. The section contemplates that the tenant requires the land for the convenient enjoyment of the property. Whenever an application is made by tenant before the Court for issu- ance of direction to the landlord for the sale of the whole or part of the land to him the Court is under a mandatory duty to determine the minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant. For this determination the Court must hold an enquiry having regard to the area of the demised land and the extent of superstructure standing thereon and the tenant's need for the said land. That inquiry pre-supposes that the tenant making the application has been in occupation of the land and the super-structure wherein he may be either residing or carrying on business and on his eviction he would be ad- versely affected. The court has to consider the need of the tenant and if it finds that the tenant does not require any part of the land it may reject the application and direct eviction of the tenant. In that event, the landlord has to pay compensation to the tenant for the superstructure.[744G-H; 745A-B]736 In the instant case, the findings recorded by the courts below clearly show that none of the defendants have been in occupation of the land or the superstructures standing thereon and they have not been carrying on any business therein. The land in dispute and the superstructure have been in occupation of the sub-tenants since 1964. Thus, the tenants could not be said to require the land for their convenient enjoyment. Having regard to these findings and the nature of the tenants' right to purchase land under s. 9 it would be inequitable to direct the landlords to sell the land to the tenants. [745E-G]The price of land, specifically in the urban areas, has escalated to a great extent and it would not be fair to deprive the landlords of their property and to allow the tenants to enrich at the landlord's expense. [745G-H]See the full content of this document
Extract
P. Ananthakrishnan Nair & Anr. VS. Dr. G. Ramakrishnan & Anr.
PETITIONER: P. ANANTHAKRISHNAN NAIR & ANR.Vs.RESPONDENT: DR. G. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.DATE OF JUDGMENT31/03/1987BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J)BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J)MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)CITATION: 1987 AIR 1272 1987 SCR (2) 734 1987 SCC (2) 429 JT 1987 (2) 7 1987 SCALE (1)662ACT: Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921: ss. 2, 3, 4 and 9--Tenants right to purchase demised land--Nature of--Superstructures constructed thereon in occupation of sub-tenants--Whether tenants entitled to the statutory benefit.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 387390 of 1977.From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.1976 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1288 to 1291 of 1975.T.S. Krishnamurthy lyer, A.T.M. Sampath and Thirumaran for the Appellants.G.L. Sanghi, P.S. Poti, A.V. Rangam, M.G. Natarajan and T.V. Ratnam for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered bySINGH, J. These four appeals are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Madras dismissing four Civil Revision Petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the appeal court upholding the order of the Trial Court dismissing their applications made under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act 1921.Briefly the facts giving rise to these appeals are: N....
See the full content of this document