Judgement

SINGH, 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 S. 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

2. Briefly the facts giving rise to these appeals are: N. V. Abdullah Sahib predecessor-in-interest of the appellants obtained a lease of about 10 grounds of vacant land situate in the city of Madras from the ancestors of respondent-landlords in 1924, for carrying on business, he constructed superstructures on the vacant land and carried on business in timber under a partnership firm along with his brother N. V. Ummer Nutty and two minors. The superstructures which were constructed prior to 1954 on the demised land were treated partnership assets along with other properties. After the death of N. V. Abdullah Sahib and N. V. Ummer Kutty the partnership business could not be carried on, as dispute arose between the partners. A suit being Civil Suit No. 152 of 1960 was filed for partition and in that suit defendants Nos. 2 and 4 were appointed joint receivers : subsequently on 7-9-1966 Sri Ananthakrishnan Nair, appellant No. 1 was appointed Receiver who was authorised to take custody of the account books and to realise rent from the sub-tenants occupying the property which was the subject-matter of dispute in the partition suit. The High Court passed a preliminary decree in the partition suit but before final decree could be prepared or finalised, the respondent-landlords served notices on the heirs of N. V. Abdullah Sahib terminating the lease and demanding surrender of the land. Since the land was not restored to the landlords in spite of termination of the lease, the landlords, in 1972 instituted four suits being Suits Nos. 33 to 36 in the Court of Small Causes at Madras for ejectment against the heirs of N. V. Addullah Sahib, which included defendants Nos. 1 to 10 and Sri P. Ananthakrishnan Nair, Advocate receiver as defendant No. 11. In the ejectment suits defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 did not appear or contest the suit and ex parte proceedings were taken against them but K. K. Kunhammoo, defendant No. 4 (second appellant) and Sri. P. Ananthakrishnan Nair, Advocate-receiver defendant No. 11 contested the ejectment suits. Defendant No. 4, namely, appellant No. 2, filed an application in each of the ejectment suits claiming benefit of S. 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act III of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a prayer to the Court for issuing orders directing the landlords to sell the land, to the defendants and to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the price which the defendants would pay. The respondent-landlords contested the applications. The trial Court rejected the application on the findings that the defendants were not in occupation of the property except a small portion where the account books were kept and the defendants did not require any portion of the land for running their business or for the convenient enjoyment of the super-structures. On appeal by the defendants Nos. 4 and 11 under S. 9-A of the Act, the appellate authority held that proceedings for ejectment had been taken ex parte against most of the defendants and persons entitled to the statutory privilege did not exercise their right and further they have not been in possession and occupation of the premises, therefore, defendants were not entitled to the benefit of S. 9 of the Act. The appellate Court further held that defendant No. 4 (the receiver) was not entitled to maintain an application under S. 9 of the Act on behalf of other defendants. Thereafter both the receivers, defendants Nos. 4 and 11 preferred four petitions in revision before the High Court. A learned single Judge by his order dated 30-7-1976 affirmed the orders of the Courts below and dismissed the revision