Provisions of Sections offend provisions of Articles 19(1)(f), 19(5) and 31(2) of the Constitution.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in C.M.P. No. 1835 of 1058 in A.S. No. 255 of 1957 on the file of this Court. The appellants before us were the respondents in the petition, and The New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd., the respondent before us, was the petitioner in that proceeding. That was an application made under section 9 (1) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (III of 1922), as amended by Madras Act (XIX of 1955), to direct the appellants before us to sell to the respondent the land on which the theatre constructed by the respondent stands.

The facts which led up to the appeal in the High Court and the application for a direction to sell the land are the following. A piece of vacant land situate within the limits of Coimbatore Municipality belongs to the appellants, who are mother and son. They granted a lease of the property to one Abhirama Chettiar by a registered lease-deed dated 19th September, 1934, for a period of 20 years. It was provided in the lease-deed that, on the expiry of the twenty-year period, the lease could be renewed for a further term of 20 years if the parties were so agreeable. It was also provided in the lease-deed that, on the expiry of the lease period, vacant possession of the land should be given to the lessor after removing any buildings which the lessee might construct thereon. On 17th April, 1937, Abhirama Chettiar assigned his interest in the leasehold for the unexpired portion of he lease period to the respondent before us, The New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd. Even before that, there was a partnership between Abhirama Chettiar and the Managing Director of the Company, in pursuance of which a pucca cinema theatre was put up on the site in 1934 1935 at a cost of over 1½ lakhs. In March, 1954, the respondents issued a notice to the Company, asking them to quit the property and deliver vacant possession of the land. On receipt of this notice, the Managing Director of the Company started negotiations with the owners for the grant of a further lease for a period of 20 years. The case of the respondents is that a draft agreement of the proposed lease was drawn up, and the first appellant agreed to execute a fresh lease-deed in consultation with his "mother. Subsequently he backed out of this agreement and filed a suit O.S. No. 76 of 1956 for recovering possession of the leased property with damages and future mesne profits. The Company, in its turn, instituted O.S. No. 264 of 1955, for specific performance of the contract to grant a further lease.

The First Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore who tried both these suits together, dismissed the suit for specific performance, but granted a decree in the suit for eviction. The Company has preferred appeals against both decrees.

Against the decree for eviction, the Company preferred A.S. No, 255 of 1957, in this Court, during the pendency of which, by G.O. No. 608, Revenue, dated loth February, 1958, the Government of Madras extended the Madras City Tenants Protection Act to the municipal town of Coimbatore. Within the period of 30 days provided in the Act, the Company applied before Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., for an order under section 9 (1) of the said Act to compel the landlord to sell the site to the Company for a price to be fixed by the Court and offered to pay the full market value.

Numerous objections were raised before Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., but he overruled all of them and held that the respondent Company was entitled to purchase the site under section 9 of the Act on paying the full market value, as undertaken by them. He directed the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, to appoint a Commissioner to fix the value of the site based on the market value prevalent on 28th July, 1958, the date of his order ; and he also gave an order, directing the appellants before us to execute a sale-deed for the site in favour of the respondent Company on payment of the m