Back
Madras High Court
V. RAMASWAMI,RATNAM
N.A.Munavar Hussain Sahib - Appellant
Versus
E.R.Narayanan - Respondent
Decided On : 06/17/1983
The Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1952 (the Act) was enacted to protect tenants who had put up superstructures and constructions on the lands of others in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they pay a fair rent for the land. The Act confers rights and benefits on tenants as well as landlords. The rights of the parties to the land and the superstructure are governed only by the provisions of the Act and not by any other provision of law or other general law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants leased out the vacant site to Ramaswami Konar who had also put up the superstructure thereon and that subsequently, the superstructure as well as the leasehold rights in the site of Shanti Theatre came to be owned by Narayanan, the plaintiff in O.S.671 of 1978, Sundaram Chettiar, the defendant 3 and Bharatha Muthu Thevar, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 5 to 7 in O.S. 671 of 1978. Even after the passing of the decree in O.S. 15 of 1954 on 10-1-1955, granting time for vacating the premises till 12-3-1958, they did not vacate and this necessitated the filing of E. P. 90 of 1958 by the appellants for the recovery of possession after removal of the superstructure.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants had not become the owners of the superstructure in Shanti Theatre, that the plaintiff, defendants 3 and defendants 5 to 7 in O.S. 671 of 1978, were together entitled to the superstructure and also the leasehold rights over the vacant site and that the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/2, the defendant 3 to 1/4 and the defendants 5 to 7 together 1/4 in the leasehold right as well as the superstructure of the cinema theatre viz., Shanti Theatre. In the absence of any plea and evidence by the defendant 3 or his son, the defendant 4, the so-called lessee, the defendant 3 in O.S. 671 of 1978, was held liable to render an account to the plaintiff in O.S. 671 of 1978 in respect of his management of Shanti Theatre.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants became the owners of the superstructure in Shanti Theatre? 2. Whether the plaintiff, defendants 3 and defendants 5 to 7 in O.S. 671 of 1978, were together entitled to the superstructure and also the leasehold rights over the vacant site? 3. Whether the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/2, the defendant 3 to 1/4 and the defendants 5 to 7 together 1/4 in the leasehold right as well as the superstructure of the cinema theatre viz., Shanti Theatre? 4. Whether the defendant 3 in O.S. 671 of 1978 was liable to render an account to the plaintiff in O.S. 671 of 1978 in respect of his management of Shanti Theatre?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The three month' time limit in S.4 (1) of the Act is a rigid, fixed and inflexible, and unalterable one incapable of extension either by court or by agreement of parties. 2. The rights under the Act, among others, include the right to claim compensation on ejectment under Ss.3 and 4, the fixation of fair and reasonable rent at the instance of the tenant under S.7-A and the right under S.9 to obtain a direction from court to the landlord to sell the land to the tenant and the requirement as to notice under S.11. 3. The Act had been passed with a view to give protection to tenants, who in certain areas, had put up buildings in the lands of others in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they paid the fair rent for the lands. 4. The provisions of the Act alone would be applicable and if that is so, it is inconceivable that there can be an ex gratia deposit dehors the Act or even an understanding by the tenant to surrender possession of the land and the superstructure outside the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs of the respondent 1 in A. S. No. 529 of 1982 and the first respondent in S. A. 987 of 1982.
RATNAM, J. :- These appeals arise out of disputes relating to the leasehold interest in the site in West Masi St., Madurai town, and title to the superstructure thereon, formerly known as 'Chandra talkies' and now called 'Shanti Theatre'. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. 92 of 1976, First Additional Sub Court, Madurai and in O.S. 672 of 1978, Sub Court, Madurai, are the appellants herein. While S. A. 987 of 1982 arises out of the decree in O.S. 92 of 1976, First Additional Sub Court, Madurai, filed by one Mangayarkarasi Achi, setting aside a summary order dated 2-5-1975 passed in 1. A. 527 of 1973 in O.S. 72 of 1961. Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai raising the attachment over a fourth share in 'Shanthi Theatre' belonging to the second respondent in the second appeal, the appeal in A. S. 529 of 1982 has been preferred against the decree granted in favour of one E. R.Narayanan, the plaintiff in O.S. 671 of 1978, Sub Court, Madurai declaring that he is entitled to a half share in the site, superstructure, machineries, projectors, furniture, fittings etc., in 'Shanti Theatre' and also granting a permanent injunction restraining the appellants in A. S. No. 529 of 1982, from interfering with the joint possession of 'Shanti Theatre' by E. R.Narayanan along with one Sundaram Chettiar and three others, who were impleaded as defendants 3, 5 to 7 respectively in that suit and for rendition of accounts by Sundaram Chettiar, for the collection and profits in the conduct of 'Shanti Theatre' from 1964 up to date and for payment of the amounts that may be found due on such account taking with interest. The site over which "Shanti Theatre" now stands was leased in 1917 by one Abdul Kader Sahib in favour of Ramaswami Konar for the purpose of putting up a superstructure thereon and conducting dramas. On the expiry of that lease, a fresh lease was granted on 22-2-1935, for a period of 11 years in favour of Ramaswami Konar. The lessee was a member of a joint family consisting of three brothers - an elder brother Gopalakrishna himself and a younger brother Radhakrishna. The lessee put up superstructures on the vacant site at considerable expense. Subsequently, Ramaswami Konar died leaving behind him two sons, Narayanan, the plaintiff in O.S. 671 of 1978 and E.R. Chellam alias Erulappa. On 29-11-1940 there was a partition in the family and thereunder, the leasehold rights in the site and the superstructure put up thereon were allotted to the share of Narayanan, the plaintiff in O.S. 671 of 1 978 and his step-brother Chellam alias Erulappa Konar. In yet another partition entered into on 29-3-1940, between Narayanan, the plaintiff in O.S. 671 of 1978 and his step-brother E.R.Chellam alias Erulappa Konar, the leasehold rights in the site as well as the superstructure thereon, fell exclusively to the share of Narayanan, the plaintiff in O.S. 671 of 1978. On 18-8-1978, Narayanan sold the leasehold rights in the site and the superstructure to one Bharatha Muthu Thevar, who was the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his brother R.M. Veerabadra Thevar with an agreement to repurchase one half of the leasehold right in the site and the theatre. Bharatha Muthu Thevar and his brother Veerabadra Thevar divided the other properties belonging to their joint family but kept the theatre as common property. On 28-11-1953, Bharatha Muthu Thevar and his brother Veerabadra Thevar reconveyed half share in the theatre and the leasehold rights to Narayanan, the plaintiff in O.S. 671 of 1978 in accordance with a compromise decree in O.S. 152 of 1950, Sub Court, Madurai. Later, there was a division of the remaining half share between Bharatha Muthu Thevar and his brother Veerabadra Thevar and Veerabadra Thevar sold his 1/4th share in the theatre and the leasehold rights on 19-12-1956 to Sundaram Chettiar, the defendant 3 in O.S. 92 of 1976 and also in O.S. 671 of 1978. On the death of Bharatha Muthu Thevar on 1-9-1962, his one-fourth share in the t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
