The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant must comply with the court's order to deposit the sale price within the prescribed period under Section 9 of the Act, and failure to do so constitutes default under Section 9(2) of the Act, leading to the rejection of the tenant's application for sale of the land.

Headnote:
Tenant - Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 - Section 9(1)(b), Section 9(2), Section 9(3) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, which entitles a tenant to apply for an order directing the landlord to sell the land under his tenancy. The court emphasized the importance of prompt payment of the sale price to the landlord and the consequences of default under Section 9(2) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant and the tenant claimed benefit of Section 9 of the Act for purchase of the land. The trial court and appellate court passed orders directing the tenant to deposit the sale price, which the tenant failed to comply with. The High Court allowed the tenant's application, finding that the tenant had deposited the amount within the prescribed period.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tenant had defaulted in complying with the orders of the trial court and appellate court to deposit the sale price, and held that the High Court was in error in holding that the tenant had discharged the obligation under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act by depositing the amount within three years of the date of the final order passed by the High Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant's deposit of the sale price within three years of the High Court's final order constituted compliance with Section 9(1)(b) of the Act, and whether the tenant's failure to comply with the orders of the trial court and appellate court constituted default under Section 9(2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless the order is stayed or the tenant absolved of his obligation to make the deposit by an order passed by the appellate or revisional court, the order determining the price remains operative and all necessary consequences contemplated by Section 9(2) of the Act must follow. If the tenant fails to make the deposit within the time fixed by the court, his application under Section 9 of the Act for sale of the land to him must stand rejected and the amount paid by him, if any, shall be refunded to him in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the order of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore. The trial court was directed to pass necessary orders for refund of the sale price to the tenant in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Judgment

B.P. SINGH, J.

1. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff while the respondents are the legal representatives of the original tenant. In this appeal the appellants have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 26th February, 1998 in Civil Revision Petition No. 729 of 1992. By its impugned judgment and order the High Court allowed the civil revision petition preferred by the respondents and set aside the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Vellore in I.A. No. 656 of 1986 in O.S. No. 947 of 1975 dated February 4, 1992 which had the effect of dismissing the application filed by the respondents-tenant under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court found that the respondents had complied with their obligations under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act having deposited the amount within time and, therefore, the application under Section 9 of the Act ought to be allowed and the appellants be directed to sell the land in question to the respondents.

2. The factual background in which the dispute arises is as follows :-

2.1. The plaintiff-landlord filed as No. 947 of 1975 claiming eviction of the tenant from the vacant site on which the tenant claimed to have raised a super-structure. In the said suit for eviction, the tenant filed his written statement and claimed benefit of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. He also filed I.A. No. 180 of 1976 under Section 9 of the Act for an order of the Court directing the landlord to sell the site to him for such price as may be fixed by the Court. The trial court by its order of March 31, 1978 held the tenant entitled to purchase the suit site excluding 992 sq. ft. 3 sq. inches surrendered to the plaintiff, under Section 9 of the Act and fixed the price for 3801 sq. ft. 9 sq. inches at Rs. 26,181.25 ps. at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. feet. Application under Section 9 of the Act as well as the suit was disposed of by the said order, the relevant part whereof reads as under :-

"For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the defendant shall pay into Court a sum of RS.26, 187.25 within a period of 6 months in 3 installments of 2 months interval from the date of this Judgment with interest and in default of payment by the defendant of anyone of the installments, the application in I.A. 180 of 1976 shall stand dismissed and the suit will stand decreed with costs."

2.2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court, the landlord as well as the tenant preferred separate appeals. The tenant preferred C.M.A. No. 31 of 1979 while the landlord preferred C.M.A. No. 32 of 1979. It appears that the District Court had passed an order of stay whereby the tenant was obliged to deposit only an amount calculated at the rate of RS.3.70 per sq. feet. Ultimately the appeals came up for disposal before the Sub Court, Vellore. By its judgment and order of November 2, 1981 the appellate court dismissed C.M.A. No. 31 of 1979 preferred by the tenant and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord and enhanced the price of the site by determining its price @ RS.1 0/- per sq. feet. The operative part of the order, so far as it is relevant, reads as follows :-

"In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to the effect that the petitioner-defendant in I.A. No.180/76 in O.S. No.947/75 is liable to deposit a sum of Rs.40,020/- into Court below within a period of six months, in two installments of three months interval from this date with interest thereon at 6% per annum and in default to payment by the petitioner-defendant of any of the installments, the application in I.A. NO.180 of 1976. shall stand dismissed and the suit will stand decreed with costs."

2.3. It appears from the record that the tenant deposited a sum of Rs.4,968/- on 18.1.1982 by way of costs and made no deposit of the price determined in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis