The execution of a decree under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act is not barred by the absence of a certified copy of the decree, and the failure to assess the amount as contemplated under the Act is not fatal to the order of delivery.

1. Inveighing the order dated 21.01.2010 passed in E.P.No.269 of 2007 in I.A.No.656 of 1986 in O.S.No.947 of 1975 by the Additional Munsif Court, Vellore, this civil revision petition is focused.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:

(i) O.S.No.947 of 1975 was filed by the original plaintiff-Thirunavukkarasu and on his death his LRs R1 to R5 herein came on record. Ultimately, the suit was decreed. The original defendant contested the matter on the ground that he was entitled to benefits under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and filed necessary I.A. also.

(ii) The said suit and the application were tried together and ultimately the trial Court passed the judgement, the operative portion of it is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“18. Issue No.4: For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the defendant shall pay into Court a sum of Rs.26,187.25 within a period of 6 months in 3 instalments of 2 months intervals from the date of this Judgement with interest and in default of payment by the defendant of any one of the instalments, the application in I.A.No.180 of 1976 shall stand dismissed and the suit will stand decreed with costs. I also direct the plaintiff to execute a deed of conveyance in favour of the defendant of 3,801 ft. 9 inches in the suit site at the price of Rs.26,187.25 after the deposit of the entire sale consideration by the defendant and direct the defendant to bear the registration fee and the stamp duty for the conveyance. I also order that on the execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff to the defendant of the extent mentioned above, at the price fixed above, the suit shall stand dismissed.”

(iii) Both the parties took up the matter before the appellate forum challenging the quantum of amount assessed by the trial Court. The plaintiff’s appeal was allowed in part and the defendant’s appeal was dismissed.

(iv) As against the said order in the appeal, the plaintiff/landlord preferred the C.R.P.No.34 of 1984, which was allowed and ultimately the amount was fixed at Rs.12/- per sq.ft.

(v) However, the defendant, who happened to be the tenant failed to comply with the order by paying the said amount within the stipulated time.

(vi) Whereupon the plaintiff filed the I.A.No.656 of 1986 seeking the following reliefs:

“to give effect to the judgement of this Honourable Court dated 31.3.1978 decree and declare that the suit has been decreed and also holding that I.A.No.180 of 1976 stands dismissed.”

(extracted as such)

(vii) After hearing both sides, the lower Court allowed the application by passing order, the operative portion of which would run thus:

TAMIL

(viii) As against the said order in I.A.No.656 of 1986, the defendant/tenant preferred the C.R.P.No.729 of 1992, which was allowed. Whereupon the plaintiff filed the Civil Appeal No.4705 of 1999 before the Honourable Apex Court and ultimately, the Apex Court by order dated 19.10.2006 set aside the order of the High Court in the said C.R.P. and the operative portion of the Apex Court’s order would run thus:

“We must, therefore, hold that the High Court was in error in holding that if the sale price is deposited within three years of the date of the final order passed by the High Court, which order attained finality, the tenant should be held to have discharged the obligation cast upon him by Section 9(1)(b) of the Act. We hold that unless the order is stayed or the tenant absolved of his obligation to make the deposit by an order passed by the appellate or revisional court, the order determining the price remains operative and all necessary consequences contemplated by Section 9 (2) of the Act must follow. If the tenant fails to make the deposit within the time fixed by the Court, his application under Section 9 of the Act for sale of the land to him must stand rejected and the amount paid by him, if any, shall be refu