IMPORTANT POINT
Actual physical possession of the demised premises of the tenant is sine qua non of an application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921-Sections 9 and 3-Right of a tenant who has put up super structure in tenanted premises to purchase the same-It is mandatory for an application u/s 9 that the applicant should be a tenant in possession of suit premises-Actual physical possession is essential-Appellant had taken on lease a property on rent-Lease was for a period of one year-Building constructed in premises did not have a roof-Tenant had to put up a roof and other construction for running a printing press in the premises-Tenant took along with him in the business his two younger brothers, defendants 2 and 3-Simply because defendants 2 and 3 continued to be in possession of suit premises-It does not follow that they were in occupation thereof as tenants-Defendant 1, tenant not in possession of suit premises, had no right to file an application u/s 9 of the Act.
Held : Section 9 read with Section 3 of the Act makes it imperative that the tenants should be in possession of the premises with respect to which the right to purchase is sought to be exercised. If a tenant is not to hand over possession of the suit premises to the landlord at the time of ejectment, there is no question of payment of any compensation to him under Section 3 of the Act. If he is not entitled to compensation under Section 3 of the Act he cannot invoke Section 9 of the Act. Actual physical possession is essential in the context of relevant provisions of the Act. In fact in P. Ananthakrishnan Nair and another v. Dr. G. Ramakrishnan and another 1987 (2) SCC 429 (though cited by the learned counsel for the appellant), it was held by this Court that the premises must be in personal occupation of the tenant before he could exercise the right under Section 9 of the Act. It was also observed by this Court that "Section 9 confers an additional statutory right on a tenant against whom suit for ejectment is filed to exercise an option to purchase the demised land through the medium of court on fulfillment of conditions specified therein. It is not an absolute right, as the court has discretion to grant or refuse the relief for the purchase of the land. The tenant has no vested right in the property, instead it is a privilege granted to him by the statute which is equitable in nature. The policy underlying Section 9 is directed to safeguard the eviction of those tenants who may have constructed super structure on the demised land, so that they may continue to occupy the same for the purposes of their residence or business." From these observations it follows that actual physical possession of the demised premises of the tenant is sine qua non of an application under Section 9. In P. Ananthakrishnan s case (supra) as per concurrent findings of fact on record the tenant had discontinued its business in the suit premises and only a small portion thereof had been retained by them for keeping the accounts books etc. of the erstwhile business. Rest of the land and the superstructure standing thereon had been in occupation of sub-tenants since long. Thus the tenant was not in actual occupation of most part of the demised premises. Therefore, it was held that it would be unreasonable to direct the landlord to sell the land to the tenants. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.-These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18.10.1996 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court disposing of three interconnected matters between the parties.

2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant Radhakrishnan had taken on lease a property (hereinafter referred as the "suit property") on rent from one Thanakachalam vide registered lease deed dated 2.2.1970. The lease was for a period of one year and the monthly rent was Rs.35/-. It is stated in the lease deed that the building constructed in the premises did not have a roof and the tenant had to put up a roof as well as such other construction as was required for running a printing press in the premises. The cost of providing electricity and water connection in the premises and of improvements in the building had to be calculated and it was to be paid by the landlord to the tenant at the time of handing back vacant possession of the premises by the tenant to the landlord. It appears that after taking the premises on lease tenant carried out certain improvements therein and started the business of running a printing press there. The tenant took along with him in the business his two younger brothers.

3. The property was purchased by the respondent-plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed dated 16-6-1979. The purchaser served a notice (Ex.B1) on the tenant on 26.11.1979 calling upon him to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. The tenant sent a reply dated 7.12.1979 (Ex.B2) to the notice stating that he had nothing to do with the property as Defendants No.2 and 3 were in possession thereof. The landlord was asked to approach defendant Nos.2 and 3 for rent as well as for possession. The landlord sent another notice dated 22.12.1979 (Ex.A3) to all the defendants calling upon them to deliver possession of the suit premises. Ultimately the landlord filed a suit for ejectment on 19.6.1980 impleading all the three brothers as defendants. One fact which needs to be mentioned here is that on 30.5.1977 defendant No. 1, the tenant executed a release deed in favour of his younger brothers i.e. Defendants No. 2 and 3 relinquishing his entire interest in the business of the printing press which was carried on in the suit premises in their favour.

4. Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act ) gives a right to a tenant who has put up super structure in the tenanted premises to purchase the same at a price to be fixed by the Court. This application is to be made within one month after the service of summons in the eviction suit instituted by the landlord against such a tenant. Relevant portion of Section 9 is reproduced as below:

"1(a)(i) Any tenant who is entitled to compensation under Section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted or proceeding under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, taken by the landlord may, within one month of the date of the publication of Madras City Tenants Protection Amendment Act, 1979 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette or of the date with effect from which this Act is extended to the municipal-town, township or village in which the land is situate or within one month after the service on him of summons, apply to the Court for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the Court, the whole or part of the extent of and specified in the application."

5. From the above provision it will be seen that the following conditions are to be satisfied before a tenant is entitled to relief:

(i) He should be a tenant in possession of the land;

(ii) He should have erected a super structure on the land in respect of which he would be entitled to claim compensation under Section 3;

(iii) A suit or proceeding for eviction should have been taken by the landlord against him;

(iv) He should have applied to the court for direction in that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 686

IMPORTANT POINTActual physical possession of the demised premises of the tenant is sine qua non of an application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Actual physical possession of the demised premises of the tenant is sine qua non of an application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.