Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2765
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Sampath & Another
Versus
S.N. Sundaram & Others
CRP (PD) No. 1656 of 2010
Decided on : 02-08-2013
For the Petitioners:R. Subramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R5, A. Seshan, Advocate, R6, Given up.
A tenant who denies the title of the landlord is not entitled to claim the benefit of section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1955.
Headnote:
Tenants Protection Act - Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1955 - [MADRAS CITY TENANTS PROTECTION ACT, 1955] - [Section 9]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit to declare the defendants as tenants and to direct them to deliver vacant possession of the property. The defendants filed an Application under section 9 of the Act to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the land required for their convenient enjoyment and to fix the market value of the said land. The trial Court allowed the Application, but the lower Appellate Court reversed the order.
Finding of the Court:
The lower Appellate Court found that the defendants, by denying the title of the landlord, were not entitled to the benefit under section 9 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants were entitled to the benefit of section 9 of the Act despite denying the title of the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a tenant who denies the title of the landlord is not entitled to claim the benefit of section 9 of the Act. The court also emphasized the importance of the landlord-tenant relationship as a prerequisite for maintaining an Application under section 9.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the defendants were held not entitled to the benefit of section 9 of the Act.
1. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 12.11.2007 in C.M.A.No.24 of 2007 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the order dated 12.11.2003, in I.A.No.8107 of 1989 in O.S.No.2878 of 1984 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The defendants 3 & 4 are the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the Suit in O.S.No.2878 of 1984 for declaring that the defendants are the tenants under the plaintiffs, to direct them to deliver vacant possession of the property more fully described in schedule B after removing the superstructure, pay arrears of rent and damages for wrongful use and occupation.
3. The defendants filed an Application in I.A.No.8107 of 1989 under section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1955, (in short 'the Act') to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the land required for the defendants convenient enjoyment and to fix the market value of the said land as per the provisions of section 9 of the Act. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the defendants stated certain details regarding the title to the property and submitted that their defence in the Suit is that the property is an endowed property of Arulmighu Sandana Vinayagar Thirukoil, Thoppetai, and not the joint family property of the plaintiffs as claimed by them. But, inasmuch as the plaintiffs are also the Trustees of the said temple without prejudice to their defence, they are willing to purchase the suit land on a price to be fixed by the Court as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
4. The plaintiffs filed a counter affidavit, stating that the defendants are not entitled to the benefit of section 9 of the Act. The trial Court by an order dated 8.10.1996, allowed the Application.
5. From a perusal of the order dated 8.10.1996, it is seen that the trial Court did not go into the issue whether the defendants are entitled to invoke section 9 of the Act, having raised a plea in their affidavit stating that the property is endowed to a temple and not a joint family property of the plaintiffs. It is stated that both parties produced documentary evidence, however, in the order dated 8.10.1996, there was no list of documents given. Curiously the trial Court has made an observation of that those questions have to be determined at the time of trial.
6. The observation and finding recorded by the trial Court was wholly erroneous. If a person to be entitled to the benefit of section 9 of the Act, the primary requirement is that he should accept that the plaintiff is his landlord and he is a tenant under him. A tenant who denies the title of the landlord, is not entitled to claim the benefit of the Act. (see BOOLOGANATHAN v. P.GOVINDARAJAN [1992 LW 273] and BHARGAVAKULA NAINARGAL SANGAM, THIRUVANNAMALAI v. CHAKRAVARTHI [1992 (2) MLJ 283]).
7. Thus, it appears that the plaintiffs were led to believe that the question as to whether the defendants are entitled to the benefit of section 9 of the Act is to be decided at a latter point of time, the plaintiffs appear to have not questioned the order. But, subsequently, the same Application being I.A.No.8107 of 1989, was posted for further orders and the trial Court fixed the extent to be conveyed as 1507 sq.ft at the rate of Rs.275/- per sq.ft. and the amount to be payable in 18 monthly instalments. Being aggrieved by such an order, the plaintiffs preferred appeal to the lower Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.24 of 2007.
8. The lower Appellate Court after taking note of the decisions of this Court on the point that a tenant who denies title of the landlord is not entitled to benefit under section 9 of the Act, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court, by order dated 12.11.2007. It appears that after the order passed by the trial Court dated 12.11.2003, the trial Court by Judgment dated 7
