LexMYLAPORE HINDU PERMANENT FUND LTD. MADRAS versus K. S. SUBRAMANIA IYER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
546 MYLAPORE HINDU PERMANENT FUND LTD. MADRAS v. K. S. SUBRAMANIA IYER May 6, 1970 [S. M. SiKRI, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] The Madras City Tenants Protection Act (Mad. 3 of 1922) as amend- ed by Amer.ding Act 19 of 1955, ss. 3, 9 and 12--Scope of. Two kinds of ·rights have been conferred on lessees under tenancies falling within the scope of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921. A B as amended by the Amendment Act of 1955. The first is a right to be paid compensation under s. 3 for buildings erected by the tenants on the leased land before they are evicted, and the second, a right under s. 9 C to the tenant et1titJed to contpensation under s. 3, to exercise the option to require the landlord to sell to him the J?nd covered by the lease for a price to be computed in accordance with that section. Under s. 12, no- thing in any contract made by the tenant shall take away or limit his right,\' under the Act, provided that, nothing herein contained shall affect . any slipulal'ions nzcule by the tenant, in writing registered, a.i; to the erec- tion of buildings in relation to buildings erected after the date o'f the con- tract. The first part of s. 12 protects a tenant against the deprivation or D limitation of his ·rights under the Act, and the rights conferred by the Act do not directly relate to covenants relating to erection of buildings. The respondent took the appellant's vacant ]and on lease for ten years. The registered lease deed provided that the lessee could put up a building whose cost should not exceed Rs. 10,000, that the plan of the :proposed building was to be approved qy the directors of the appellant. that the construction should be in accmdance with the approved plan, that E the Jessee. should surrender possession with the constructi0n at the end of the lease period and that the lessor would pay the valLiation cf the con~~ truction then current, or Rs. 5,000 whichever is Jess. The respondent put up a building. On the question, whether on the expiry of the lease period, the respondent was entitled to the rights under ss. 3 and 9, or the stipulations in the tease deed \\'ere covered by the proviso in s. 12. HELD: In Vajrapani Naidu v. New Theatre Carnatic Talkies, [1964] F ·6 S.C.R. 1015, it was held that the object of the Act was to protect tenants against any contractual engagements entered into by them expre~.s~ Jy or by implication depriving th~mselves wholly or partially of the rights conferred by the statute; that the only class of cases in which the protec- tion becomes ineffective is when the tenant had made a stipulation as per the proviso in s. 12; that a stipulation to vacate and deliver possession of the land after demolishing the building constructed by the tenant, really amounted to the tenant giving up his right under ~. 9, and that the stipula- , G tion was not one as to erection of building, and hence, would not come under the proviso in s. 12. Stipulations regarding restriotions about size. nature of the building constructed the building materials to be used therein, and the ourpose 'for which the building is to be utilized, are given in the t!~isioo as some illust.rative exan1~les of stipulations covered by the pro~ viso in s. 12. [558 F-H; 559 A-Bl ( 1) In the present case although the stipulations do not expressly refer to the size and nature of the building and the building materials to be used thP'l'e;n, they are all implicit in the stipulations which fix the upper limit of th• cost of the building to be constructed and require the approval of the »lo~ of the building by the directors of the appellant. Therefore, H A II n G H MYLAPORE FUND LTD. v. K. s. IYER (Vaidialingam, !.) 547 the stipulations are as to the erection of the buildings and attract the pro- viso in s. 12. [560 A-CJ (2) In V. S. Mudaliar v. N. A. Raghava Chary. Ll969] 2 S.C.R. 158. it was held that a stipulation that the tenant shall not erect any permanent structures so as to entitle hin1 to claim their value was a stipulation under the proviso in s. 12 as to the ~ection of buildings and disentitled the tenant from claiming compensation under s. 3, in respect of 'buildings put up by him in contravention of the stipulation. Therefore, the >ripulation in the present case under which the respondent agreed to Jin1it 1hi: quan- tum of compensation payable in respect of the building con,tructed by him was·also a stipul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.