Effect of amendment on decrees of ejectment not executed.

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in M.P. Nos. 2082 to 2084 of 1956 in Ejectment Suit No. 235 of 1953 on his file. The suit was instituted by the landlord against the tenant of a parcel of land in Komaleeswaranpet. An order for ejectment was passed in the suit on 9th September, 1953. The tenant was given two months’ time for surrendering vacant possession. The tenant then instituted O.S. No. 1948 of 1953 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for a declaration that the landlord was not entitled to an order for eviction. That suit was instituted under section 47 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The suit was dismissed on 27th January, 1955. The appeal preferred by the tenant against the decree dismissing the suit was transferred by this Court to the City Civil Court and has been dismissed by the City Civil Court on 26th April, 1957.

When the landlord obtained the decree for eviction against the tenant, the tenant was not entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. The Act was amended in 1955 so as to have its benefits extended to tenants in the position of the tenant with whom we are concerned in these petitions. In September, 1956, the tenant filed three petitions under the amended City Tenants Protection Act, in Ejectment Suit No. 235 of 1953. In M.P. No. 2082 of 1956, the tenant prayed for an order directing the landlord to sell the land to the tenant for a price to be fixed by the Court. In M.P. No. 2084 of 1956 the tenant prayed that an order be passed against the landlord directing him to pay compensation for the superstructure which the tenant had built on the land. In M P. No. 2083 of 1956 the tenant prayed that fair rent be fixed under section 7-A of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. In M.P. No. 2082 of 1956, the Judge of the Small Causes Court was of the opinion that the tenant was not entitled to an order that the landlord be directed to sell the land and dismissed that application. In M.P. No. 2084 of 1956, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the tenant was not entitled to an order for copensation and on that finding dismissed that petition. In M.P. No. 2083 of 1956, the learned Judge took the view that the tenant was entitled to an order fixing fair rent. The tenant has filed C.R. P. Nos. 1080 and 1079 of 1957 against the orders passed in M.P. Nos. 2082 and 2084 of 1956 and the landlord has filed C.R.P. No. 525 of 1957 against the order passed by the learned Judge in M.P. No. 2083 of 1956 on his file.

I shall first deal with the application by the tenant for an order that the landlord be directed to sell the land for a price to be fixed by the Court. When the application was filed, a decree for ejectment has been passed against the tenant. An application for an order that the landlord be directed to sell the land has to be made under section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. Section to (1), as amended by the amending Act of 1955, enacts that section 9 shall apply to suits in which decrees for ejectment have been passed but have not been executed before the coming into force of the amending Act. Section 9 thus became applicable to the tenant with whom we are concerned in these petitions. But under section 9, an application for an order that the landlord be directed to sell the land had to be made within one month after the coining into force of amending Act of 1955. The tenant’s application, M.P. No. 2082 of 1956, had not been made within that period of one month. The learned Advocate for the tenant states that the rule that the application should be made within one month is a mere rule of pleading which need not be enforced, if the judge to whom the application is made, thinks that, in the particular case, enforcement of the rule would work hardship or injustice. I hold that the rule is a rule of limitation, which the Court does not have power to relieve a person against,