Relation of lessee and trustee.

The vacant site bearing door No. 45, Sundaram Pillai Street, Purasawakkam, Madras, belongs to an institution called the Vasudeva Pillai Trust, Madras. The Trust let out the property on lease to one Shiyala Chetti on a monthly rent of Re. 1. The Trust wanted to recover possession of the property and filed Ejectment M.P. No. 2369 of 1951 against the lessee, Shiyala Chetti in the Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction. On 23rd January, 1952, the Court ordered Shiyala Chetti to vacate the land on or before 31st July, 1952. Shiyala Chetti’s daughter, Neelavathi Ammal thereupon filed O.S. No. 271 of 1952 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, against the Trust for a declaration that the ejectment order, dated 23rd January, 1952 against her father was null and void, and for an injunction restraining the Trust from executing the said order. Her case was that her mother Muthammal was the tenant of the property and that she had put up some superstructure on the land and that after her death in 1939 she became the lessee, and that she was entitled to the protection and the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act of 1921. On 10th December, 1954 the Trust and Neelavathi entered into a compromise the terms whereof are as follows:

“Defendants I to 5 (the Trust) as trustees of the Vasudeva Pillai Trust, Purasawakkam, Madras, do hereby recognise the plaintiff (Neelavathi Ammal) as tenant of the suit plot of land not entitled to claim rights and privileges under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act of 1921, and that under these circumstances the plaintiff (Neelavathi Ammal) hereby withdraws the suit.”

Neelavathi Ammal was recognised as the tenant of the property under the Trust and she continued to be in possession as such. The Trust filed O.S. No. 845 of 1955 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of possession of the plot of land from Neelavathi Ammal alleging that the Trust required it for its own use. A notice, dated 4th March, 1955, calling upon the defendant to vacate on the expiry of 31st March, 1955, was issued by the Trust prior to the institution of the suit.

This suit was resisted by the tenant Neelavathi Ammal mainly on the ground that she was entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act as amended by Madras Act (XIX of 1955). The tenant offered in terms of that Act to purchase the plot of land from the Trust on a value to be fixed by the Court. The Trust while agreeing to pay compensation to the tenant for the value of the superstructure on the land contended that the Trust cannot be compelled to sell the property to the tenant.

The learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, who tried the suit upheld the contention of the plaintiff-Trust and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs, subject to the Trust paying the compensation to the defendant for the value of the superstructure on the land. The defendant-tenant preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 104 of 1957 which was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The learned Additional Judge held that the tenant was entitled to the benefits of the Act and accordingly granted her the relief for purchasing the land from the Trust in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the Trust challenging the correctness of the decision of the lower appellate Court.

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the Trust can be compelled to sell the suit land to the tenant in terms of section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. Section 9 (1) of the Act is as follows:-

“Any tenant who is entitled to compensation under section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted or proceeding under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, taken by the landlord, may, within one month of the date of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1935, coming into force or of the date with effect from which this