Fixation of rent u/s 7 A of the Act.

RAMACHANDRA IYER J.:- This civil revision petition has been posted before us under the directions of the Honble Chief Justice, as the determination of the question arising therein, namely, whether an appeal lies from an order passed by a civil court fixing a reasonable rent under the provisions of S.7-A of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, involves a consideration as to the correctness of the decision reported in Perumal Chettiar v. Kondal Chetty, ILR 1939 Mad 213 : (AIR 1939 Mad 430).

2. The respondents, the owners of a piece of vacant land measuring 250 ft. by 105 ft. in Madurai Town, granted a lease of it in the year 1942 to the petitioners at an yearly rent of Rs.100. By a subsequent agreement between the parties the rent was increased to Rs.900 per annum. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 (as amended by Act XIX of 1955), to be referred to as the Act, which conferred certain rights on the tenants of land let out for construction buildings thereon, was extended to Madurai town on and from 29-6-1955. Taking advantage of the provisions therein and alleging that the subsequently agreed rent could not be treated as a fair rent as the agreement relating to it was not a voluntary one, the tenants applied to the District Munsif, Madurai town, for fixation of a reasonable rent for the land taken on lease by them. The learned District Munsif, after considering the relevant evidence in the case, fixed rent at the rate subsequently agreed to between the parties, namely, at Rs.75 per month. Aggrieved by the decision, the tenants filed an appeal in the District Court. The learned District Judge, however, dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that it was incompetent. In so doing, he followed the decision of this court in ILR 1939 Mad 213 : (AIR 1939 Mad 430).

3. In that case Burn and Stodart JJ. held that having regard to the terms of Ss.7 and 8 of the Act no appeal would lie from an order made by a court under the former provision such order not being a "decree in a suit". The correctness of that view, which has been challenged in this civil revision petition has to be decided on a construction of the provisions of the Act.

4. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 was enacted to give protection to tenants of land who had constructed buildings on the lands in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they paid the fair rent for the land. As originally enacted, it applied only to the tenancies in the Madras city created before its commencement. The Act was amended by Madras Act XIX of 1955, which extended the benefits of the Act to tenancies created prior to the coming into force of the amending Act namely, 10th September 1955. Act XIX of 1955 empowered the Government by means of a notification to extend the provisions of the Act to such Municipal towns as they may consider necessary. The Act creates a right in, the tenant to obtain compensation for the buildings put up by him on the demised property on eviction. It also confers on him an option to purchase the land subject to certain conditions prescribed in S.9. It entitles the tenant to a proper notice before eviction. Secs.6, 7 and 7-A of the Act invests a jurisdiction in the court to determine the fair rent payable for the land during the period of tenancy in the cases specified in the respective sections. Sec.6 relates to the case of fixation of fair rent where in a suit for eviction after an order for payment of compensation to the tenant the landlord is unable or unwilling to pay the same. Secs.7 and 7-A respectively provide for a case where no suit for eviction in pending. The landlord or the tenant can apply to the court having jurisdiction to fix such rent as it deems reasonable. Sec.7-A which is relevant for the present purpose runs thus:

"Where, on an application under Sec.7 the rent previously payable for a land has been enhanced the tenant may apply to the court having jurisdiction .... to entertain a suit for ejectment or to the