SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2176

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
K.M. Sanjeevi Raja (Died) – Petitioner
Versus
Poosapadi Dayadi Pannai – Respondent
T.C.T.O.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2024
Decided On : 08-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: S. Kadarkarai
For the Respondent: R. Suriya Narayanan

The Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act does not apply to tenancies of land owned by religious institutions or charities, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Headnote:(A) Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 - Sections 3 and 9 - Tenancy dispute - Petitioners sought to compel the landlord to sell the property under Section 9 - The Act's applicability was contested based on the landlord's status as a religious trust - The court found that the property was dedicated to religious charity, thus exempting it from the Act - The petition was dismissed as having abated by operation of law. (Paras 7.28, 8)

(B) Tenancy Rights - The court reaffirmed that tenants are entitled to compensation for superstructures under Section 3, but this right is negated if the tenancy falls under the exemption for religious institutions. (Paras 7.6, 7.9)

Facts of the case:
The original tenant filed a petition under the Act to compel the landlord to sell the property, which was claimed to be essential for their business. The landlord contended that the property was part of a religious trust and thus exempt from the Act. (Paras 1.2, 3.1)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the property was dedicated to religious charity, and therefore, the provisions of the Act did not apply, leading to the dismissal of the petition. (Paras 7.24, 8)

Issues: The main issues included whether the petition abated by operation of law and whether the petitioners were entitled to compel the sale of the property. (Paras 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act does not apply to tenancies of land owned by religious institutions or charities, thus the petition was dismissed. (Paras 7.28, 8)

Result: The TCTOP (MD) No. 1 of 2024 is dismissed, as having abated by operation of law.

ORDER :

PRAYER: Transferred City Tenant Original Petition filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, (a) to direct the respondent to sell the under mentioned property vacant land to the 3rd, 6th and 7th petitioners for a price to be fixed by the Hon'ble Court in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tenants Protection Act, (b) to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner the costs of this application, and (c) grant such further and other reliefs. (amended as per order in I.A.No. 1 of 2020 dated 29.01.2020)

A. Prelude:

1. This Transferred City Tenant Original Petition (TCTOP) arises out of O.P.No. 139 of 1979, in O.S.No. 224 of 1979.

1.1 On 09.07.1979, the said suit was filed with the reliefs directing the defendants to vacate and surrender the possession of the suit property and for consequential reliefs. Admittedly, the tenancy is only concerning land and the original first petitioner/tenant had put up superstructures.

1.2 The present original petition was filed by the first petitioner/tenant under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), with a prayer to direct the respondent/landlord to sell the vacant land described in the schedule to the petition being part of the suit property to the petitioners 3, 6 and 7/tenants in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

1.3 Since the year 1979, the matters were kept pending and in the connected Civil Revision Petition (MD) No. 1050 of 2023, this Court passed a detailed order on 10.07.2024, withdrawing the suit as well as the present TCTOP to the file of this Court. The said Order may be read as part and parcel of this order. The TCTOP was transferred and re-numbered as TCTOP (MD) No. 1 of 2024 and the same is taken up for further hearing and disposal.

1.4 When the matter came up for hearing, both sides learned counsel submitted that even though the above-connected Civil Revision Petition was filed regarding an interlocutory order regarding the recall of P.W.1, both sides have already let in evidence and their respective evidence on record. They do not press further prayers of recalling the PW-1 and submitted that for both sides no further evidence needed be let in the TCTOP and as such, the present TCTOP is taken up for disposal by way of this order.

B. The Case of the Petitioners:

2. A careful handling and perusal of the decrepit papers of the present case reveals that the petition was filed by the original petitioner/tenant – K.M.Sanjeevi Raja, which is being continued and pursued by his legal heirs. The property described in the petition is a vacant site belonging to the respondent/landlord. The same was leased to the original first petitioner, in 1945 for the purposes of putting up superstructure and installation of rice, flour and oil mills, and boilers. The deceased first petitioner had put up rice, flour, oil mills and boiler plants on the premises constructed a compound wall and erected platforms and a shed in the southern portion of the suit property. The value of the superstructure construction is over Rs.2 lakhs. The original rent for the premises, i.e., the vacant site was Rs.140/- per annum and it has been periodically enhanced to Rs.960/- per annum. The rents are being collected every year. It is not a case of monthly tenancy. The business is the only source of livelihood for the deceased first petitioner and his family. The entire vacant land is absolutely necessary for the deceased first petitioner for the purpose of rice, flour and oil mills. The existing platform is not sufficient for drying the boiled rice and keeping the bags. The small front portion in the south abutting Tenkasi Road is also necessary and is used as the entrance for loading and unloading.

2.1 There is a Well on the north side of the petition property. The Well is part of the Nandavanam of the respondent. As an amenity for convenient enjoyment of the demised premises and for the purpose of the boiling rice, water from the Well was ta

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top