LexHARIDAS GIRDHARDAS & ORS. versus VARADARAJA PILLAI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
291
A
HARIDAS GIRDHARDAS & ORS.
v.
VARADARAJA PILLAI & ANR.
August 18, 1971
8
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.]
Madras City Tenallls Protection Act, 1921 (as amended in 1955)-
App/icability of s. 12 proviso.
The plaintiffs who were landlords lea-sed to defendant No. I a plot
of land in Madras under a duly registered lease deed dated November 17,
C
1938 for a period of 15 years 3 months from March I, 1939 at a rent of
Rs. 560 per month on the terms and conditions set out therein with an
option for renewal in favour of defendant No. 1 for a period of 10 years
from March 1, 1954 but at an enhanced rent of Rs. 630 per month, and
subject to the other stipulations except the clause for renewal. Under
cl. 2 of the deed defendant No. 1 was entitled to raise a cinema building
and other structures at a. cost of not less than Rs. 50,000.
Clause 4(d)
D
provided that at the expiration or sooner determination of the tenancy
the lessors had the option of buying the buildings in question for a sum
of Rs. 50,000, less depreciation. This option was to be exercised within
one week of the termination of the tenancy. Defendant No. I in accord-
ance with the stipulations in the lease deed constructed a theatre on
the said plot and exercised his option to renew the lease for a further
Period of 10 years from March 10, 1954. Shortly before the expiry of The
E
period of lease on March l, 1964 the plaintiffs exercised the option of
buying the buildings erected on the demised land and cent by cheque to
defenc!ant No. I the amount of Rs. 50,000 mentioned in cl. 4{d) of the
deed, waiving their claim to decluction of depreciation. Defendant
No. 1 however refused to accept the preferred sum. In the consequent
suit the question for determination was whether cl. 4(d) of the deed
could be enforced by the plaintiffs in view of the Madras City Tenants'
'.f
Protection Act, 1921 as amended by the Amending Act of 1955.
HELD: The Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 was passed
in 1922 to give protection to certain classes of tenants who had construc-
ted buildings on others' land in the hope that they would not be evicted
as long as they paid fair rent for the rent. It was not the object of the
Act to cover a hope if the 'hope' was entertaii:Jed contrary to express
G · stipulations as to erection of buildings. Accordingly proviso to s. 12
exempted any stipulations made by the tenant in writing registered as
t9 the erection of buildings in so far as they related to buildings erected
after the date of the contract.
[296F-G]
Clauses 2 and 4 or the lease deed amounted to a stipulation as to
the erection of buildings and consequently the proviso to s. 12 was appli-
H
cable to the case.
Accordingly the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce -
cl. 4 (d) of the deed against defendant No. I. [296A-B]
My/apore HJndu Permanent Fund Ltd. v. K. S. Subramania Iyer,
A.LR. 1970 S.C. 1683 at 1691-92, applied.
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 S.C.R.
N. Vajranani Naidu v. New Theatre Carnatic Talkies, [!964] 6 S.C.R .. A
1015, referred to.
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 74
of 1971.
Appeal from the judgment and order da•ed June 17,
1970 of the Madras High Court in 0. S. Appeal No. 35 of B
1967.
1'vf. C. Chagla, R. V. Pillai and P. Kesava Pillai, for
the appellants.
K. Parasaran, K. Rajendra Chawdhary and Hari Singh
fol· respondent. No. I.
c
A. V. Rangam, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, C.J. This appeal is directed against the judgment
of the Madras High Court ( Veeraswami, C.J., and Gokula-
krishnan, J.) dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-
D
appellants against the judgment and decree of Kunhamed
Kutti, J.; dated February 20, 1967, made in the exercise of
the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Madras High
Court.
The plaintiffs had filed a suit on the following allegations.
E
The plaintiffs who were landlords leased to defendant No. I
the plot of land on Mount Road, Madras, under a duly
registered lease deed dated November 17, 1938, for a period
of 15 years 3 months from March I, 1939 at a rent of
Rs. 560/- per month on the terms and conditions set out
therein with an option for renr.:wal in favour of defendant
F
No. I for a,further period.of 10 years from March I, 1954
but at an enhanced rent of Rs. 630/- per month, and subject
to the other stipt1lations except the clause for renewal.
For ourExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.