The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary and equitable nature of the tenant's right under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, and the mandatory nature of section 11 in the context of suits against tenants.

The tenant, who has filed a petition under section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 against the respondent/landlord to decide the minimum extent of land necessary for his convenient enjoyment and to fix its price with a direction to the respondent to convey to the petitioner the extent of land for which the price is fixed, having lost his case in both the courts below, has filed the present revision petition.

2. The respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.316 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Erode for a direction to vacate the petitioner herein from the premises comprised in new Door Nos.86 to 89 (Old Door No.82A), New Shandy Road, now E.V.K. Sampath Salai, Erode Town on the ground that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent.

3. The petitioner has filed a written statement in the said suit stating that he has put up the superstructure in the vacant site at his cost and that the rent which was tendered has been refused by the respondent. The petitioner has also filed O.P.No.9 of 1997 under section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, praying for an enquiry to decide the minimum extent of land which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the petitioner and to fix the lands price with a direction to the respondent to convey to the petitioner the extent of land for which the price is fixed. In the O.P., it was the case of the petitioner that he has taken on lease the vacant site in May, 1958 from late E.V.K. Sampath on a monthly rent of Rs.35/-and he has also paid an advance of Rs.1,000/- and the rent was subsequently enhanced and at last it was Rs.600/- per month. It is his case that after taking vacant site in possession, the petitioner constructed a thatched shed to run lorry repairing workshop and in the year 1968, he altered the thatched shed into pucca tiled room, tiled hall, store room, godown, tools room, etc. The plan which has been submitted for the approval was returned by the Municipality on 14. 1964 for certain compliance. However, according to the petitioner, in anticipation of approval of the building plan, he had put up the construction and he was warned by the authorities that separate action will be taken for the unauthorized construction. During 1969 to 1977, the petitioner was running the workshop in the name, Guruvayoorappan Auto Works and he was also carrying on welding works and lorry repairing works. According to him, he is entitled to compensation for the construction put up by him under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, and after receipt of summons in the abovesaid suit, he has filed the petition.

4. On the other hand, it was the case of the respondent in the counter affidavit filed in O.P. that what was let out was a non-residential building and not a vacant site. It is denied that the petitioner has put up the construction. The averment of the petitioner regarding building plan approval is also denied. It is stated that the respondent has filed O.S.No.316 of 1997 in August, 1997 having presented the plaint on 8. 1997 and the petition in O.P. was filed on 210. 1997 which is barred by limitation since as per the provisions of the Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons, the petition should have been filed. It is also stated that there are tiled, thatched, cement sheet roofing in the suit property and the total extent of the property is 11¾ cents and the building is housed in 7 cents and the remaining vacant site measures about 4 ¾ cents. It is also stated that the property is a Trust property and therefore, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 has no application.

5. On the petitioner side, documents Exs.A-1 to A-39 were marked and on the respondent side, Exs.B1 to B-28 were marked. On the side of petitioner/tenant, the son of the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 apart from one Thiru Murugesan as P.W.2 while on the side of respondent, Thiru E.V.K.