N.A. MUNAVAR HUSSAIN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. versus E.R. NARAYANAN (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 11-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
!'I.A. MUNA VAR HUSSAIN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
E.R. NARAYANAN (DEAD) AND ORS. 
JULY 11, 1995 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921-Sections 4, JO-Order u/s 
4 can be passed only on application u/s 10(2)-No period of limitation 
prescribed u/s 10(2). 
The appellant's ascendant K, in the year 1917 gave a vacant plot of 
land in Madurai Town on lease to R, permitting construction to be raised 
B 
c 
on the plot. The lessee R built a theatre on the plot. After the death of the 
original lessee, on partition, the leasehold rights over the vacant land and D 
the superstructure put up thereon came to the share of his son, respondent 
No. 1 who sold these rights in favour of defendants 2 and 3 with an 
agreement to repurchase one half of the leasehold rights which was con· 
veyed to him in the year 1953. Appellant No. 1 filed a suit against respon· 
dent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) and defendants 2 and 3 and others for 
recovery of possession of the vacant site after removal of superstructure E 
and for a mandatory injunction for removal of structure as well as for 
damages for use and occupation. In the said suit compromise was arrived 
at between appellant No. 1 and defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6. A decree was 
passed in 1955 whereunder defendants 1, 2, 3, and 5 agreed to deliver the 
possession of the suit properties after removing the superstructure, to the F 
plaintiff and defendant No. 6 on or before 12.3.1958 and further agreed 
that if defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 failed to deliver possession the plaintiff 
and defendant No. 6 would be at liberty to take possession of the suit 
properties in execution of the decree after 12.3.1958 and they shall be at 
liberty to remove the superstructure and realise costs of such removal G 
from defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 5. After the passing of the decree, 
defendant 3 transferred his 1/4th share in the leasehold rights and the 
superstructure in favour of respondent No. 2. The defendants failed to 
remove the superstructure and handover vacant possession as per the 
terms of the compromise decree .. The appellant and defendant No. 6 filed 
an Execution Petition. 
H 
829 
A 
B 
c 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 sought the ·benefit or the provisions or 
the Madras City Tenant's Protections Act, 1921 and prayed that the 
market value of the site might be fixed and the same might lie directed to 
be com·eyed to them and that the decree holder was no longer entitled to 
demolbh the building and he was bound to pay compensation for the 
building put up by the applicants. ·The applications were dismissed as 
barred by limitations as the defendants-tenants did not apply within one 
month from the date the Act, as amended by Act XIX of 1955, was extended 
to the city of Madurai but applied only in 1958 and therefore the said 
applications could not be allowed in respect of the said property u/s 9 of 
the Act. Tbe executing court, however held that the decree-holder must pay 
reasonable value for the costly superstructure and directed th~t a fresh 
valuation to be.made by the Commissioner. A joint endorsement was made 
by appellants and respundeni No. 1 accepting the valuation made by a 
Commissioner and praying that six .;.onths time might be grJnted for the 
payment of the ~mount to the decree holders. The Subordinate Judge 
D granted six months time but application was submitted for further e~ten­
sion of time for depositing the amount. Time for deposit was extended by 
three months and the appellants deposited the amount. One respondent 
No. 7 instituted a recovery suit against respondent no. 2 wherein an order 
WdS passed for attachment of I/4th share of respondent No. 2 in the 
E 
superstructure. 
The appellants filed a claim petition against the attachment on the 
ground that they had become owners of the superstructure on the date of 
attachment by reason of the deposit of R~. 88,940 made by them into the 
court and that respondent No. 2 did not have any interest therein on the . 
F 
date of attachment. The claim petition was allowed and the order of 
attachment in respect of l/4th sbare in theatre was set aside. Respondent 
No. 7 tiled a suit for setting aside the order. The suit was decreed on the 
ground that iD' views of Section 4(11) of tbe Act only three months' time 
could be granted for depositing the sum of Rs. 88,940 towards cost of 
superstructure and tbe said amount had t

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