Judgement

Law. Rep. 67 Ind. App. 25 ( 1939- 1940)

A. Ranganatham C hetti V. M. Ethirajulu Nayudu 151

Appeal (No. 61 of 1938) from a judgment and decree of the High Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction (March 31, 1937) affirming a judgment and decree of the same Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction (October 8, 1936).

On October 18, 1912, the appellants father, one Nathamuni, obtained a lease of a plot of land in the City of Madras from the respondent, M. Ethirajulu Nayudu, and his undivided brother, for a period of ten years from October 1, 1912, to September 30, 1922, at a monthly rental of Rs.50. The tenant was to be at liberty to erect a superstructure on the land. In 1914 Nathamuni improved an existing superstructure, and built a theatre. In 1920, during the currency of the lease, and the respondent having become the sole owner of the land, there were negotiations which resulted in an agreement by the respondent to give a fresh lease at Rs.100 a month. On the strength of that agreement Nathamuni demolished the existing building and erected in its place a substantial building on the land. A formal lease was executed on February 1, 1923, under which the plot of land was leased to the appellants father for a term of ten years from October 1, 1922. Nathamuni died in 1930, and his sons, the appellants, continued in possession of the land.

On October 9, 1932, the respondent sent a notice to the first appellant stating that the lease had expired on September 30, 1932, and that he required possession of the property and was willing to pay Rs.3000 for the value of the buildings. On November 7, 1932, the first appellant, acting for the family of the appellants, replied, stating that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, governed the relationship of the parties, that he would have to have recourse to the provisions of the Act for the acquisition of the land unless the respondent agreed to sell it by private treaty, and that the compensation offered was grossly inadequate.

On January 25, 1933, the respondent brought the suit out of which the present appeal arose. He prayed for a decree for possession of the land and the building thereon, and a declara tion as to the amount payable to the appellants as the market value of the superstructure. He further claimed mesne profits.

The facts, and the relevant provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The trial judge (Wadsworth J.) held that the Act ceased to apply on the execution of the lease dated February 1, 1923, because that lease had the effect of surrender by the appellants of their rights under the first lease, and the creation of a new tenancy. In his opinion, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the Act.

On appeal by the appellants to the appellate jurisdiction (Beasley C.J. and Cornish J.) it was held that inasmuch as the tenancy in question was created on February 1, 1923, to take effect from October 1, 1922, both dates being after the commencement of the Act of 1922, the Act, in view of the terms of s.1, sub-s. 3, thereof, did not apply, and the appellants were not therefore entitled to the benefit of the Act.

1939. Oct. 17. C. S. Rewcastle K.C. and Subba Row for the appellants. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, applies to this case, and the appellants as tenants under that Act are entitled to be protected from eviction. That being so, the appellants as tenants, who were entitled either to compensation under s. 3 for the improvements carried out, or, alternatively, were entitled under s. 9 of the Act to the right to purchase at a price to be fixed by the Court, could do nothing until the landlord acted. That is, the first step had to come from the respondent, and until he had involved himself in a suit for ejectment the right that the appellants had to purchase was in abeyance, but in existence. The

Law. Rep. 67 Ind. App. 25 ( 1939- 1940)

A. Ranganat