Notification for extending provisions of the Act to non-residential buildings published.

Defendant in O.S. No.290 of 1986, on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Panruti, is the appellant.

2. Respondents filed the above suit for recovery of property, on the allegation that the appellant is in possession of the property as a tenant and that he has defaulted in paying the rent. It is further contended that the tenancy has been terminated by issuing a notice under Sec. 196 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the respondents are entitled to get possession from the defendant.

3. In his written statement, defendant did not challenge the title of the property. But his contention was that he has taken the land on lease and has put up a non-residential building and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. Within the statutory period, he also filed an application under Sec.9 of the Act to purchase the property. Evidence was taken on the application filed by the defendant wherein it was held that since for non-residential building, the Act will have no application, the same was dismissed. Since there was no other defence, the suit was also decreed. Against the judgment, the defendant preferred A.S.No.81 of 1988, on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The appeal was also dismissed for the same reasoning. The second appeal is preferred against the concurrent finding, on the following substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, i.e., Tamil Nadu Act III of 1922 does not apply to non-residential buildings in Nellikuppam as held by the court below in view of G.O.Ms. No.1285, Revenue, dated 35. 1975?

.(2) Whether the present suit in the absence of a Notice under Sec.11 is maintainable? and

.(3) Whether the appellant is not entitled to compensation under Sec.3?”

4. After the second appeal was filed, defendant preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal before the District Court, with an application to condone delay, against the dismissal of his application under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. The lower appellate court dismissed the delay condone petition on the ground that no sufficient cause has been made out. The civil revision petition is filed against the dismissal of Sec.5 petition, refusing to condone delay.

5. When the civil revision petition came for arguments, learned Judge directed the second appeal also to be posted along with the revision Petition. That is how both these matters have come together for arguments.

6. Both the courts below have held that the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act on the ground that in respect of a nonresidential building, the Act has no application. It is not on the basis of any evidence, but on the basis of certain assumptions, which have been shown to be patently incorrect. The Extension Notification is dated 35. 1975, extending the provisions of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act to non-residential buildings in all Municipal towns in the State. The said Notification is published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section dated 26. 1975 at pages 302 and 303.

7. When this was brought to the notice of the respondents, they contended that the same was not placed before the Legislature and, therefore, the Notification has no force. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that in the subsequent editions of the Book, this Notification was not published and hence his inference that the said notification is not in force has to be accepted.

8. I cannot accept the said contention in view of the binding decision in respect of the very same Notification reported in R.Govindasamy v. Bhoopalan and others, (1977)2 M.L.J. 206. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment, at page 208, a learned Judge of this Court has considered a similar question and has held that the Journal Reports [1996 Notification need not be placed before the Legislature and, therefore, it is valid. For the sake of convenience, it