Judgment:-The first defendant in the suit is the appellant as also the petitioner in the civil revision petition. The respondents filed a suit for a declaration of their title and for recovery of possession. Their case was that the suit site originally belonged to one Subramani, the father of the respondents and after him the site was leased by his wife Amirthammal in favour of the appellant. The lease was stated to be some time in the year 1956 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5. Later on, it is stated that it was increased gradually upto Rs. 20. On the ground that the appellant failed to pay the rent, the respondents issued a notice terminating the tenancy and called upon the appellant to surrender possession. Of course, at the time when the notice was issued, the respondents claimed that the superstructure also was put up by them and it belonged to them. But when they filed the suit, they gave up their claim to the super-structure and contended that they are entitled to recover possession of the vacant site after removal of the superstructure. The appellant’s case was that about 20 years prior to the suit, he purchased the property under an oral sale from Amirthammal and that he was not holding that property as a tenant under the said Amirthammal or the plaintiffs. He also contended that subsequent to his purchase, he had put up the superstructures costing over Rs. 15,000. He filed an additional written statement in which he raised a plea that there was no valid notice as required under section 11 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act and that, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The appellant filed a separate application I.A. No. 1212 of 1972 under section 9 (i) (a) of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act of 1922 praying to direct the respondents to sell the suit land to him for a price to be fixed by the Court in the event of finding against the Appellant on the question of oral sale and giving a finding that he is a tenant. Both the suit and the application under section 9 were tried together. The trial Court held that the oral sale pleaded by the first defendant was not true and that he was a tenant of the suit site. The trial Court also held that since the Madras City Tenants’ Protection, as extended to the Vellore City within which the suit property is located, did not apply to nonresidential buildings, the appellant was not entitled to any order for sale under section 9 of that Act. Accordingly, the suit was decreed as prayed for and I.A. No. 1212 of 1972 was dismissed. The appellant preferred appeals before the lower appellate Court both against the decree as also against the order in I.A. No. 1212 of 1972, but without success. The result of it is there is a finding that the relationship between the appellant and the respondents is landlord and tenant, but the tenant-appellant is not entitled to a direction for sale under section 9 of the Act as the Act, as extended to Vellore City, did not apply to nonresidential buildings. The second appeal and the civil revision petition have been filed respectively against the decree in the suit and the order in the application filed under section 9 of the Act. When the Second Appeal was pending, G.O. Ms. No. 1285, Revenue, dated 31st May, 1975 was published in the the Fort St. George Gazette on 28th June, 1975 extending the City Tenants’ Protection Act for non-residential buildings also in respect of the Municipal Town of Vellore. Taking advantage of this notification, the appellant filed C. M.P. No. 12098 of 1975 on 7th October, 1975 under section 9 praying for a direction to the respondents to sell to the petitioner the suit site for a price to be fixed by the Court. Since this application was not filed within a period of one month from 25th June, 1975, as required in section 9, the petitioner has filed C.M.P. No. 11277 of 1976 for excusing the delay in filing C.M.P. No. 12098-of 1975. Though the appellant has filed an appeal against the decree in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document