Appeal by tenant held not maintainable.

Srinivasan, J.

1. The suit out of which these proceedings arise is one for ejectment of a tenant of the plaintiff. It is not necessary to set out all the facts in view of the position that the tenancy is now an admitted one. The only question that is raised in the proceedings is whether the tenant is entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants' Protection Act.

2. Prior to the filing of this suit, the plaintiff filed a suit, O.S. 1017 of 1973 for recovery of possession against the same tenant. That suit was decreed by the District Munsifs Court, Thanjavur, but when the appeal was pending in the Sub Court, the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act was extended to the area in which the property is situated. On such extension of the Act, the appellate Court took the view that the suit was not maintainable because of the absence of a notice under Section 11 of the Act. The landlord was directed to issue a notice and take fresh proceedings for eviction and the appeal by the tenant was allowed on such directions.

3. Consequently, the present suit came to be filed after issue of a notice by the landlord. In this suit the tenant claimed the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The trial Court negatived his claim on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court in Sundaraswarar Devastanam v. Marimuthu I.L.R., had decided that in the case of trust properties, there could not be any order under Section 9 of the Act unless there was a necessity for the sale or benefit to the trust. In that view, the trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but directed an enquiry into the value of the superstructure for the purpose of the plaintiff paying compensation to the tenant under Section 3 of the Act.

4. The tenant preferred an appeal against the decree in the suit and also a civil miscellaneous appeal against the order in the original petition. The learned Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur held rightly that the decision in Sundareswarar Devastanam v. Marimuthu I.L.R., was wrongly understood by the trial Court. The learned Subordinate Judge held that in the case of trust properties, which are not Res Extra Commercium there can be a direction to sell under Section 9 of the Act, even in the absence of any necessity or benefit to the trust. In that view, the appeal was allowed. It must also be mentioned that another contention was raised on behalf of the plaintiff that the tenant forfeited his rights under the Act in view of his denial of title in the written statement filed in O.S. 1017 of 1973. This contention was also rejected by the learned appellate Judge. He took the view that there was no such denial as contended by the plaintiff. Consequently, the learned appellate Judge dismissed the suit and ordered the application under Section 9 of the Act.

5. The present second appeal is against the dismissal of the suit and the civil revision petition is against the order in C.M.A. 110 of 1978. Learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner raised three interesting questions. The first question is that the civil miscellaneous appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge filed by the tenant was not maintainable in view of the fact that he had prayed for two alternative reliefs in his application under Section 9 of the Act and one of the said reliefs had been granted in his favour by the learned District Munsif. The tenant in his application under Section 9 of the Act, had prayed not only for the sale of the property in his favour but in the alternative prayed for payment of compensation for the superstructure erected by him. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has passed an order for payment of compensation, and, therefore, the tenant was not a person aggrieved in order to maintain the civil miscellaneous appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge. In this connection learned Counsel places reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sakkubai Ammal v. Babu Reddiar Alias R.