LexN.VAJRAPANI NAIDU AND ANOTHER versus THE NEW THEATRE CARNATIC TALKIES LTD., COIMBATORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
',
;.
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1015
not like to go through the entire sale proceedings overagain.
In one contingency this proviso also works for the benefit
of the judgment-debtor, for he will be relieved of part of
his indebtedness.
But anyhow this does not show that the
main provision is not intended for the benefit of the judg-
ment-debtor.
We are, therefore, satisfied, on a true
construction of s. 35 of the Act, that it is intended only
foi: the be.nefit of the judgment-debtor and, therefore, he can
waive the right conferred on him under s. 35 of the Act.
If that be the legal position, 0. XX!, r. 90 of the Code
of Civil Procedure is immediately attracted. The concurrent
finding of the courts is that by reason of the non-observance
of the provisions of s. 35 of the Act no substantial injury
was caused to the judgme.nt-debtor. Further, though notice
was given to the judgment-debtor, in one case he did not
file objections at all and in the other case, though the
judgment-debtor filed objections, he did not attend at the
drawing up of. the prodamation. The sales are, therefore,
not liable to be set aside under the terms of the said provision.
In the result the orders of the High Court are set aside
and those of the Additional Subordinate Judge are restored.
The appellants will get their costs throughout from the 1st
respondent. There will be one set of hearing fee.
Appeals allowed.
N. VAJRAPANI NAIDU AND ANOTHER
THE NEW THEATRE CARNATIC TALKIES LTD.,
COIMBATORE
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c.
SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S. M. S!KRI JJ.)
Afadras City Tena111.~· PriJtection Act, 1922 (Act 3 o/ 1922),.ss. 9, 12-··
uasr of land for purpo•• of •nacting buildlngl-lf l•as• not ,....,.
ed after twenty years lessor entitled to vacant possts&ion . of land
after demolishing building-A.ct permitting tenant
to
either
get
1964
Dhittndranath
Gorai
v.
S11dhir ChaJulra
Gho•lt
Subba Rao/.
1964
Morch 4.
JllH
N. J' aiNlfOnl
N•illN
Y.
N•w Th1alr1
Carnatic Talkie1
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
CQRIPfRSalion jar building or purchase Ja.nd at price fixed by court-
l'rovision whether violates landlord's jundamenral righ1s--('011s11ru-
tion of India, Arts. 19(l)(fj, 31.
Tilt appellant and his
mother (the lessors) 11ranteJ a lease of an
open silC m Ule town of co1mbatore to Abirama Chettiar under a re&is-
tered 'deed dated Se9tember 19.1934.
The ao1..ual rent stipulated under
the lease was Ks. 1u,~u anu the penuU ot tne 1ease was .lu years.
·1ne
term under the lease was that the land was to be utilised for construct-
i•e bwldmgs thereon for .. purposes of cinema, drama
etc." It was
furthct agreed. between the par\lc:s that iu the encl oi the term the lessee
would demolish the buildings which be bad, constructed and deliver
vacant posseSSJon ot the site to the Lessor.
Abirama Cbettiar constructe'd a theatre on the site, and assigned his
rights to the respondent-company. ln an action against the company
for a decree in ejectment and for mesne profits, the Trial Court awarded
to the 1cS£Ors iii. d."'rce for poSSC1SJ.on and UlCSne profits. Against uie
decree lhe comp411Y-rospondent preferred an
appeal to
the Distncl
Court wtuch was transterrod for trial to the High Court. During the
,r
pend.ency of this appeai.,
the ::,tale of Madras
extended the
Madras
City Tenants' Protection Act, 3 of 1922, as amendea by Madras Act
19 of 1955 to the Municipal Town of Coimbatore. The company then
applied under •. 9 of the Act and on thil appbcation the High Court
dlrected that the lessors do sell to the company the site in
aisputo
under s. 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, agamsl
paymont ol the lull marlr.et value of the i&lld on the date of the order.
Tbc 111der was coolirmed in an appeal under tho Letters i'atenL
Held: Per Gajendragadkar, C.J., Shah and Sikri, JJ. section 12 bas been
enacted to protOct the tenants against any
contractual
engagements
which may ha.ve been made expressly or by implication to deprive them·
selves wholly or parually of the protection intended to be conferr"'1 by
the Statute. And the only class of cases in which the protection becomei
ineffective is where the tenant bas made a stipulation in writing registered
as to the erecUon of buildings, erected after the date of the contract
of lease. The stipulations not protected in s. 12 are only
those
in
writing rogistered and relate to erection Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.