The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the tenant to be in actual physical possession of the land and building to claim the right under section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act.

1. Defendant in O.S.No.3894 of 1982 on the file of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 06.12.1999 in CMA No.263 of 1997 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment in I.A.No.13549 of 1982 dated 13.10.1997 on the file of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit property and claimed Rs. 14,400 being the arrears of damages for use and occupation and for other reliefs. The defendant filed I.A.No. 13549 of 1982 under section 9 of the City Tenants Protection act to direct the plaintiff to sell the suit land at a market price to be fixed by the Court. The land originally belonged to one Saraswathi Dhanakotti and was leased to Caltex (India) Limited for a period of 5 years on 26.10.1957 with three renewal options of five years each for the purpose of putting a petrol bunk. By an Act 17 of 1977 Caltex (India) Limited was taken over by the Central Government and vested in a new Government Company called the Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited. The last lease was executed by Shrimathi Saraswathi Dhanakotti in favour of Caltex (India) Limited for the period 26.10.1972 to 25.10.1977. Subsequently, this Company was amalgamated with another Government Oil Company called Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Ever since 26.10.1957 Caltex (India) Limited and its successors-in-interest have been in continuous possession of the suit property. The tenancy has been recognised by the respective owners of the property from time to time. The defendant is successor-in-interest to the erstwhile Caltex (India) Limited and Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and hence, a tenant within the meaning of section 4 of the Madras City tenants Protection Act of 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). As a tenant, he is entitled to purchase the suit site from the plaintiff under section 9 of the Act at the market price to be fixed by the Court and hence the petition.

The plaintiff filed a counter affidavit and contended that the defendant is not entitled to claim benefit under section 9 of the Act. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the former owner even as early as 17.10.1973 and on the date of the agreement itself parted with sizeable cash. There was no subsisting valid lease in favour of M/s.Caltex Limited. There is no clause relating to renewal of the lease deed and consequently the lease deed is being executed in derogation of the agreement which will not bind the plaintiff. M/s.Caltex Company itself wrote on 18.01.1977 that they stood subsisted for the original lessee and they did not also apply for renewal. It is only on 09.05.1978 under section 396 of the Companies Act, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation came into existence and their rights were expressly denied. M/s. Caltex Company was permitted to put up only structures like office bunk, fixtures and fittings such as oil tanks, counters, electrical fittings, lockers, lights and other small removable structures. The embedding of underground structures like the tanks cannot come within the terminology 'building'. The company is not entitled to purchase the site. There was only a small temporary superstructure consisting of glass panes and partitions occupying an area of 10 x 10 feet. The application has not been made in the proper form as contemplated under law. The defendant is now a Government of India Undertaking and it is totally inconceivable that the company should seek the conveyance of the site. There are series of writ petitions pending before the Court challenging the validity of Act 17 of 1977.

The plaintiff also filed an additional counter affidavit that the application under section 9 of the Act has to be dismissed as the mandatory requirements have not been complied with. The defendant had not put up any