The provisions of section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act are controlled by the provisions of section 52 of the Act, which provide that a person who is in possession of property under a decree of court which is subsequently reversed is not entitled to be paid the value of improvements effected by him while in possession.

1. The above appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.1.1983 made in A.S. Nos. 138,139 and 140 of 1981 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil with in its turn came to be filed against the order dated 12-11-1981 in E.A. No. 598 of 1980 in O.S. No. 525 of 1970 on the file of the principal Listriet Munsif, Nagercoil.

2. O.S. No. 525 or 1980 was filed by Bagavathi Ammal and Krishnammal for recovery of the property from the lessees, namely, B. Vallinayagam and B. Velu Pillai and other defendants who claimed under defendants 1 and 2. The basis or the suit was that the lease of a vacant land was granted on 9.2.1109 M.E. which was executed in favour of the mother of the plaintiffs referred to above. Under the lease deed, the lessees were permitted to construct buildings on the vacant land there was a provision to receive the value of it while surrenderimg possession. The said suit was filed on the ground of arrears of rent and for own occupation. On 26.10.1972, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the value of the building was Rs. 2,854/and recovery of possession was granted subject to the payment of the said value.

3. At that stage, the first defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record in the suit. The second defendant and the legal representatives of the first defendant filed A.S. No. 112 of 1973 against the decree passed in the suit. The Appellate Court, while confirming the decree relegated the question of determining the value of the buildings to final decree proceedings by its judgment and decree dated 28.2.1974. In the final decree proceedings, the value of the buildings was fixed at Rs. 20,136.83 and time for deposit by two months was granted. The final decree was passed on 13.3.1976.

4. In the meanwhile, the Madras city Tenants Protection Act was extended to Nagercoil Municipality by Notification No. G.O.Ms. No. 1965 dated 10-11-1967 published in the Gazette dated 13-121967. Hence I.A. No. 942 of 1970 was filed by the lessees defendants in O.S. No. 525 of 1970 claiming bebefits under section 9 of the said Act. Since the lessees could not pay the value of the land the said application was dismissed. But at the same time, an issue was raised in the suit as issue No. 3 in the following t erms: Whether defendants are entitled to protecion of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act”?. The Court below held that the defendants were entitled to the value of improvements only. By then, the second defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 11 to 17.

5. While matters stood thus, the plaintiffs filed E.P. No. 215 of 1976 for delivery and they got delivery of the building belonging to the first defendant. The plaintifis in the suit then filed E.P. No.

223 of 1977 depositing Rs. 13,045.63 into Court for delivery in respect of the building of the second defendant. But the legal representatives of the second defendant, namely, defendants 11 to 17 resisted the execution petition. The plaintiffs deposited Rs. 9,304.45 on 27.4.1977 and Rs. 3,741.48 on 11.6.1977 amounting to Rs. 13,045.63 as referred to above and claimed delivery of the buildings bearing Nos. 28/11-12 and 13. The legal representatives of the second defendant raised an objection that under section 4(4) of the Act that the amount ought to have been deposited into court within three months from the date of the decree which was made on 13-8-1976 and the amount not having been paid within that time, the suit stood dismissed and no execution could be levied. The executing Court overuled the objections and allowed the execution petition on 12.9.1977 holding that the Act was not extended to Nagercoil then and since the same was extended during the pendency of the suit, the defendants are not entitled to the benefits of the Act.

6. The legal representatives of the second defendant filed C.M.A. No. 73 of 1977 on 20-9-1977 against the order dated 12-91977 before the lower appellate