Right of tenant is not a vested right but an option or privilege.

This revision has been preferred by the defendant in a suit on ejectment, whose application under section 9(1) of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed by the learned District Judge of Salem on appeal.

The plaintiff in the suit is a Devasthanam represented by its managing trustee. The trustee had leased the property to the defendant under a registered instrument for a period of five years on 2nd August, 1950. The defendant (petitioner), the tenant, had been authorised to put up structures on the property and live therein during the leased period. After the expiry of the lease, the suit was instituted, and, while the suit was pending, the Act was extended to Salem on 29th January, 1958, and thereupon the present petitioner came out with the application under section 9(1) of the Act, and that has given rise to the present proceeding. The application of the petitioner was dismissed in the first instance by the trial Court on an erroneous view as to the scope of section 12 of the Act, and, on appeal therefrom by the petitioner, A.S. No. 294. of 1959 on the file of the District Court, Salem, the order of the trial Court rejecting the petitioner’s application under section 9(1) was set aside and the matter remanded to the learned District Munsif for disposal of the matter in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Act, the learned District Munsif to fix the price of the vacant site. This order had been passed on 27th of February, 1960 and was not the subject of any revision or appeal. Pending the remand, the Act was amended by Madras Act XIII of 1960 on 27th July, 1960. Under the amendment, the Court, on an application under section 9(1) of the Act, has first to decide the minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the tenant. There was a change also in the manner of valuation of the site. Prior to the amendment of 1960 the value of the site should be determined at the lowest value within seven years next preceding the date of the order. But under the amended provision the value should be the average for three years immediately before the date of the order. Based on the provisions of the amendment, additional and reply statements were filed by the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff contending that only the minimum extent of land necessary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant should be directed to be sold. A point was also raised for the plaintiff that as trustee the plaintiff had no right to convey or sell the suit land, and that, therefore, section 9 of the Act would not be applicable. The learned District Munsif held that the suit site was not attached to the temple or used for any purpose of the temple and as such inalienable property. It was not property which the trustee had no power to alienate at all even for purposes of necessity or benefit. The District Munsif overruled the contention on behalf of the tenant that under the terms of the remand order the Court was bound to direct conveyance of the entire site leased and could not go behind it and apply the provisions of the Amended Act. He found that an extent of land of an area of 2,100 sq.ft. need alone be conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant, and, as regards its price, he fixed at Re. 1 per sq.ft. Appropriate orders were passed on these findings, directing deposit by the tenant of a sum of Rs. 2,100 into Court within a period of four months. Against this order appeals were preferred both by the plaintiff and defendant A.S. No. 155 of 1961 by the plaintiff and A.S. No. 167 of 1961 by the tenant. The principal contention of the plaintiff-and it found acceptance at the hands of the learned District Judge-was that the land in question was not one coming within the meaning of section 9, as the trustee had no power to convey or sell the land leased to the tenant except for necessity or benefit. Incidentally the plaintiff also claimed a higher