M. RAMASWAMY PILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus HAZARATH SYED SHAH MIAN SAKKAF KHADIRI THAIKAL

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 383 · Decided: 03-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M. RAMASWAMY PILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
HAZARATH SYED SHAH MIAN SAKKAF KHADIRI THAIKAL 
SEPTtMBER 3, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Tenancy: 
Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921: Section 9-Tenant holding 
over-Claiming to be in occupation since 1942-Lease deed executed only in c 
1955-Whether the lease commenced before the Wakf Act, 1954-Whether 
tenant entitled to the benefit of the provision. 
The Respondent· plaintiff filed a suit for possession or a plot or land 
from the Appellant-tenant on the ground that the tenant was holding over 
the land even after the expiry or two year5 fixed In the rent deed. It was D 
also alleged in the plaint that the tenant had put up a superstructure on 
the land without the knowledge or permission or the plalntilT. According 
to the plaintiff, he wanted to construct pucca terraced shops on the site 
for which he obtained the necessary licence from the Municipality and as 
such the su!t property was needed for the plaintiff's own use. 
E 
The appellant-defendant contested the suit claiming that the super· 
\ 
structures on the land had been put up by the previous tenants and be 
purchased the same from them. It was further claimed that the plaintiff 
had recognised the occupancy of the defendant and accepted him as tenant 
and the registered lease deed executed In 1955 was in fact a renewal of the F 
f 
existing tenancy since 1942. 
' 
The defendant also filed a separate petition under section 9 of the 
• 
Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, and prayed for fixing a price for the 
suit site and to c~nvey the property on payment of the price to be fixed by G 
the Court. This petition was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that 
the property being a Wakf property it was Inalienable. The validity of the 
lease deed was also challenged by the plaintiff. He also pleaded that even 
if the tenant was entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants' 
Protection Act, he can claim the benefit only in respect of the residential 
portion in the backside and not in respect of the entire property. 
H 
383 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
By a common judgment the Munsif decreed the suit for p~ssession 
In favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the petition of the tenant. The 
appeals preferred by the tenant were dismissed by the Sub-Judge. On 
appeal, the High Court held that there was no relationship of landlord 
and tenant between the appellant and respondent even prior to the lease 
B deed; that under the Mohammedan Law, the mutawalli had no power to 
execute the lease deed in favour of the appellant for a period of two years 
and as such the lease was Invalid. It also held that the lease was not 
binding on the Wakf and the same could be avoided by Respondent in the 
course of the proceedings under section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' 
Protection Act. 
c 
D 
Aggrieved against the High Couri's judgment, the tenant has 
preferred the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The High Court simply considered the lease deed dated 
17.11.1955 and held that there was no evidence to show that the appellant 
had been In possession of the property as a tenant under the respondent 
prior to the execution of the lease deed. The High Court placed reliance 
on the recitals in the lease deed to indicate that the appellant was inducted 
E Into possession for the first time pursuant to the terms of the lease and 
observed that had the appellant been in possession of the property earlier 
then such facts should have been recited in the lease deed. The High Court 
was wrong in taking such a vi.-. There was ovenvhelming evidence on 
record to show that the appellant was in occupation of the property long 
F 
before 1955 and the stand taken by the appellant was correct that it was 
purely a renewal of the existing tenancy which had already come into 
existence from the year 1942. (389 B-C) 
2. The only reason given for denying the benefit of section 9 of the 
Madras City Tenants' Protection Act by the High Court to the appellant 
G Is that while executing the lease deed dated 17.11.1955, the mutawalll had 
no power to grant such lease under the provisions of the Wakf Act. The 
High Court was not correct in taking the aforesaid view. The appellant in 
the present case was a tenant long before the coming into force of the 
Wakf Act 1954. The plaintiff had come forward with a clear case In the 
H plaint that the appellant was a tenant holding

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.