Claiming of benefit by the tenant u/s 9 of the Act.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein (landlord) against the orders of the Courts below in an application filed by the respondent (tenant) under S. 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the case of the respondent the property in question, viz ., a vacant site belonged to the petitioner by purchase on 28th January, 1974, from one Sudaravelu and his minor son. The respondent claimed to have taken a lease of the vacant land from one Muthuswami Mudaliar and his son Sundaravelu on 21st April, 1968, for a period of five years. After obtaining the lease, the respondent stated that he had put up a tiled shed on the west and a pandal on the east and that in the tiled portion he has been carrying on business in firewood. In that process, according to the respondent, he had expended a sum of Rs. 3,000. While so, disputes arose between Sundaravelu and one of his relations Ratnammal in relation to the title over the property in question and the respondent claimed that subsequently he came to know that Ratnammal had no right over the property and therefore, he had been paying the rents to Sundaravelu. The respondent further stated that after purchasing the property, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 865 of 1975 for recovery of possession of the property and in that suit summons was served on the respondent on 22nd October, 1975. Since, according to the respondent, he is entitled to the benefits of S. 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, within 30 days from the date of service of the summons, an application was filed by him for a direction to the petitioner herein to sell the property to the respondent at a price to be fixed by the Court.

2. This application filed by the respondent was opposed by the petitioner herein contending that the petition is not maintainable. According to the petitioner, the respondent became a tenant under Muthuswami and his son Sundaravelu on 21st April, 1968 in respect of door No. 185 in Mutcharry Street, and total area leassd out was only 437 sq. ft. The respondent according to the petitioner, had claimed a larger extent for door No. 185 with mala fide intention. The petitioner further stated that the respondent did not put up superstructure at a cost of Rs. 3,000 but had put up only a Calicut tiled shed and thatched shed of a temporary character at a cheap price worth not more than Rs. 400 and the respondent is not entitled to claim the benefits of the Act as the respondent had denied the title of the petitioner over the property when he instituted O.S. No. 865 of 1975.

3. The petitioner followed this up by an additional counter filed on 15th March, 1977, wherein it was stated that the respondent is in occupation of door No. 184 and other portions in door No. 186, besides door No. 185 and all the three door numbers originally belonged to one common owner. Sundaravelu had leased out the property to the respondent. A further plea was also raised by the petitioner that the respondent had taken on lease door No. 184 and the whole of door No. 185 and a portion of door No. 186 and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the reliefs under S. 9 of the Act.

4. The learned District Munsif, Erode, who enquired into this application, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, held that what was leased out in favour of the respondent herein was only a vacant land and not a site with the building in door No. 184. it was also found that the respondent herein had put up superstructure by erecting a tiled and thatched shed in the property in question spending about Rs. 3,000. On these findings, the learned District Munsif held that the respondent will be entitled to an order under S. 9 of the Act and appointed a Commissioner to visit the property in order to ascertain the minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the respondent and also to fix the price the