LexP. ANANTHAKRISHNAN NAIR & ANR. versus DR. G. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
P. ANANTHAKRISHNAN NAIR & ANR.
v.
DR. G. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.
y
MARCH 31, 1987
'
B
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921: ss. 2, 3, 4 and
9~ Tenants right to purchase demised land-Nature of-Superstruc-
'
tures constructed thereon in occupation of sub-tenants-Whether tenants
t--
entitled to the statutory benefit.
c
~. -
Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921
provides that every tenant shall on ejectment he entitled to he paid
compensation for the value of building which may have been erected by
him. Section 9 of the Act, provides that a tenant who is entitled to
)..._
D
compensation under s. 3 and against whom a suit for ejectment is
instituted may apply for an order that the landlord may be directed to
sell the land to him for the price to be fixed by the court.
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had obtained a lease
of vacant land in the city of Madras from the ancestors of the res-
E
pondent-landlords in 1924 and constructed superstructures thereon for
carrying on business. The business was, however, discontinued in 1964.
~
A partition suit was filed and the first appellant was appointed receiver.
Before a final decree could be passed in that suit, the respondent-
landlords served notices on the heirs of the original tenant terminating
the lease and later filed ejectment suits against them. Only defendant
No. 4 (2nd appellant) and defendant No. 11, advocate receiver (1st
'
F
appellant) contested the ejectment suits. Ex-parte proceedings were
-{
taken against the other defendants. Defendant No. 4 filed an application
¥'.
in each of the ejectment suits claiming the benefit of s. 9 of the Act, with
a prayer to the court for directing the landlords to sell the land to the
defendants and to appoint a commissioner to ascertain the price.
G
The Trial Court rejected the application on the findings that the
defendants were not in occupation of the property, for they had let out
the entire building to sub-tenants except a small portion thereof where
the account books were kept, and that the defendants did not require
~·
any portion of the land for running their business or for the convenient
H enjoyment of the superstructures.
734
P.A. NAIR v. G. RAMAKRISHNAN
735
On appeal by defendants 4 and 11 under s. 9A of the Act, the
A
appellate authority held that as the defendants had not been in posses-
sion and occupation of the premises, they were not entitled to the be-
nefit of s. 9.
The High Court affirmed the findings of the courts below and
dismissed the revision petitions preferred hy the appellants.
B
---\
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
-~
-
HELD: Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act,
1921 confers a privilege on a tenant, against whom a suit for ejectmeut
bas been filed by the landlord to exercise an option to secure conveyance
of only such portion of the demised land as would be necessary for bis
convenient enjoyment. It creates a statutory right to purchase land
through the medium of the court on fulfilment of the conditions speci-
fied therein. It is not an absolute right, as the court has discretion to
grant or refuse the relief for purchase of the land on the facts of a
particular case. [743G-H]
S.M. · Transport (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamingal Mutt, [1963]
Suppl. 1 SCR 282, referred to.
The policy underlying s. 9 is directed to safeguard the eviction of
those tenants who may have constructed superstructures on the
demised land so that they may continue to occupy the same for the
purpose of their residence or business. The section contemplates that
c
D
E
the tenant requires the laud for the convenient enjoyment of the prop-
erty. Whenever an application is made by tenant before the Court for
issuance of direction to the landlord for the sale of the whole or part of F
the land to him the Court is under a mandatory duty to determine the
minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for the convenient
enjoyment by the tenant. For this determination the Court must hold an
enquiry having regard to the area of the demised land and the extent of
superstructure standing thereon and the tenant's need for the said land.
That inquiry pre-supposes that the tenant making the application has
G
been in occupation of the land and the super-structure wherein he may
be either residing or carrying on business and on his eviction he would
be adExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.