Provisions of City Tenants Protection Act cannot be involved by respondent.

The petitioners/ the decree-holders in O.S. No.95 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Devakottai. The petitioners filed the said suit seeking for eviction of the respondent and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 4. 1980. The respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed on 12. 1987. As against this, the respondent preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 11 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Devakottai and the same was ended in dismissal by judgment and decree dated 23. 1990. Thereafter, the petitioners filed E.P. No. 104 of 1990 seeking for recovery of possession. That was dismissed on 210. 1980. Thereafter, the present execution petition has been filed.

2. The respondent herein contended the E.P. on the ground that since the earlier E.P. was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the value of the superstructure, which the respondent is entitled to by way of compensation, within the stipulated period of three months, the second execution petition is barred. Further, the respondent had stated that the petitioners ought to have deposited the compensation amount within three months from the date of decree of the trial court as per Sec.4(1) of the City Tenants’ Protection Act and since the same has not been complied with, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. The court has no power to extend the time prescribed under the statute. No evidence has been let in by both the parties. The executing court had dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the statutory requirement of Sec.4(l) of the City Tenants’ Protection Act and as such the result would follow as per Sec.4(4) of the said Act. As against this, the present revision has been filed. But, however, the executing court has held that the present execution petition is maintainable.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the decree do not specify any time-limit for the deposit of the compensation amount and in the absence of any stipulation in the decree, the petitioners waited to deposit the amount in view of the pendency of the proceedings initiated by the respondent for setting aside the ex parte decree. When the appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed on 23. 1990 subsequently the decree was corrected on 4. 1991. The amount had been deposited after the decree was corrected. The amount had been deposited on 16. 1991 within three months from the date of the amendment of the decree and as such the petitioners had deposited the amount in strict compliance of the statutory provisions. Hence, the order of the lower court is not correct.

4. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent contended that the ex parte decree was passed as early as 4. 1980. The petitioners ought to have deposited the amount within three months from the date of the decree, which is the statutory requirement and since the petitioners did not comply with the same the execution was rightly dismissed.

5. I carefully considered the order of the executing court. The printed copy of the judgment was produced. I find from the printed copy of the judgment of the trial court that O.S. Nos.89 to 94 of 1977 and O.P. Nos.4 and 5 of 1977 had been disposed of by the common judgment dated 14. 1978. From the judgment I find that the respondent had not claimed any benefit under Sec.9 of the City Tenants’ Protection Act. Only two persons, who are the defendants in O.S. No.89 of 1977 and O.S. No.94 of 1977 had claimed such benefit. But, however, in the concluding portion of the judgment, so far as this respondent is concerned, who is the defendant in O.S. No.93 of 1977, the court below had given the finding as follows:

"In the result, the plaintiffs are given a decree ordering the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property to the 2nd plaintiff on payment of value of the superstructure put up by the defendant and the plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of