Veeraswami, C.J.- This is a prolonged litigation involving landlord and tenant and the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (III of 1922) as amended by Madras Acts XIX of 1955, IV of 1972 and XXIV of 1973. The tenant, one Varadaraja Pillai, who having died on 21st May, 1974 and is now represented by his heirs, asks in his applications for a direction to the landlord to sell to him the land covered by the lease for a price to be fixed either on the ground that in view of Madras Act IV of 1972, the Judgment in H. Girdharidas v. V. Pillai1, is null and void or on reopening of review of that Judgment in terms of section 9 (3-A) of Madras Act XXIV of 1973. The appellants there had by a registered lease deed dated 17th November, 1938 leased out to the tenant a certain plot of land for a period of fifteen years and three months on a rent of Rs. 560 per month with an option for renewal for a further term of ten years but at the enhanced rent of Rs. 630 per month. Under the terms of the lease the tenant constructed a theatre on the land at a cost of more than Rs.50,000 for exhibition of cinema films. At the expiration of the lease period, the lessor exercised the option of purchasing the buildings and sent the lessee a sum of Rs. 50,000 as agreed upon in the lease deed without deducting depreciation. But the lessee declined to accept it taking up the stand that the landlord had no right to enforce the stipulation in the lease deed providing for the landlord’s option to purchase the building. Thereafter the landlord brought a suit for a declaration that the landlord was the owner of the superstructure from 1st March, 1964 and for rents etc., The suit was dismissed on the view that the landlord was net entitled to invoke the proviso to section 12. With this conclusion, a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party, concurred and dismissed the landlord’s appeal. A further appeal by the landlord to the Supreme Court was however successful. It not only granted the declaration asked for by the landlord, but also on allowing an amendment of the plaint, directed the tenant to deliver possession to the landlord of the demised land and buildings and superstructures built thereon in good and satisfactory condition and granted mesne profits to be determined by the trial Court from 4th August, 1968 till delivery. Possession was directed to be delivered within 6 months from 18th August, 1971, the date on which the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

2.We may mention that though the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 applied, only to tenancies prior to 21st February, 1922,theMadras Amending Act XIX of 1955 extended its benefits to the tenancies prior to 12th September, 1955. The preamble to the Act, as it originally stood, stated its object as that it was necessary to give protection to tenants, who in municipal towns and adjoining areas in the State of Madras had constructed buildings on others’ lands in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they paid a fair rent for the land. By section 3 every tenant shall on ejectment be entitled to be paid as compensation the value of any building erected by him. The quantum of compensation to be paid by the landlord succeeding in the ejectment suit is to be determined by the Court and on payment thereof by the landlord into Court within the time statutorily allowed, the tenant shall put him into possession of the land with the building. If the amount is not so paid, the landlord shall not be entitled to institute a fresh suit for ejectment, or present a fresh application for recovery of possession for a period of five years. By section 9(1) any tenant entitled to compensation under section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted may within the prescribed time apply to the Court for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the Court, the whole or part of the extent of land mentioned in his application.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document