PALANI AMMAL versus VISWANATHA CHETTIAR (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 06-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PALANI AMMAL 
v. 
VISWANATHA CHETTIAR (DEAD) AND ORS. 
MARCH 6, 1998 
B 
[S.B. MAJUMDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921-Sections 2(4)(ii)(a), 9 & 
C 13-Protection to statutory tenants- Tenant continuing in possession of 
open land after determination of the tenancy agreement-Section 9 applies 
only where landlord-tenant-relationship exists-Denial of title of landlord 
by tenant-Mode of determination of tenancy as envisaged by Section 111 
(g) of Transfer of Property Act attracted-Is foreign to scope of definition of 
D 'tenant' under section 2(4)-Section 9 becomes inoperative-Section lll(g) 
must be deemed to be repealed or modified by express provisions of sections 
9 and 13-Section 112 which refers to section 111 (g) also not attracted-
Held, determination of the tenancy agreement envisaged by Section 2(4)(ii)(a) 
does not contemplate determination of lease by forfeiture under section 
111 (g) of T.P. Act-Tenant incurring forfeiture of tenancy by denying title of 
E landlord is not entitled to protection under the Act-Transfer of Property Act, 
1882--Section 111 (g). 
F 
Section 1 I-Notice preceding ejectment suit by landlord-Tenant 
denying title of landlord-Notice required only when tenant accepts him as 
landlord-Held, section 11 not attracted. 
Section 9-Application-Maintainability of-Compulsory purchase of 
/and--Application by tenant moved against stranger and not against real 
owner-landlord-Held, application incompetent and liable to be dismissed. 
Section 2(1)-Building -Lease of open land with granite foundation 
G in a part of the land-Tenant put up structure over foundation and use it/or 
non-residential purpose of running fuel depot-Held, granite foundation 
would not attract definition of building under section 2(1) and lease cannot 
be said to be partly of open land and partly of a building. 
Section 3-Applicability-Grant of compensation in lieu of the right to 
H purchase under Section 9-Tenant de.nying landlord's title to the land-
212 
PALANI AMMAL v. V. CHETTIAR 
213 
Section 3 applies only if it is shows that landlord-tenant relationship exists A 
between the parties-Held, tenant not entitled to compensation under section 
3 of the Act. 
Original landlords-respondent no. I and 2 leased out an open piece of 
land with a granite stone foundation in a part of the land, to the appellant-
tenants by a lease deed. The appellant put up a structure over the foundation B 
and used it for the purpose of running a fuel depot and remained in possession 
of the suit land since then. After a period of 13 years the original landlords 
sold the suit land to respondent No. 3 and tried to forcibly evict the appellant 
from the land. Appellant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining 
the respondents from forcibly taking away the possession of the suit property C 
from her. Respondents filed a suit for eviction of the appellant in the same 
civil court. Appellant also filed an application under Section 9 of the Madras 
City Tenant Protection Act, 1921 for purchase of the suit land. The Trial 
Judge clubbing the matters decreed the suit of the respondents, and dismissed 
the suit and application of the appellant. Aggrieved by the order appellant 
filed two first appeals and miscellaneous application. The Appellate Court D 
allowed the application and the appeals. Against this the respondents filed 
new appeals and a revision application in High Court. The High Court 
agreeing with the findings of the trial judge held that sale deed executed by 
respondent Nos. I& 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 was valid and as the 
appellant had denied the title of respondent No. 3 application under section E 
9 of the Protection Act was not maintainable and that there was no occasion 
for the respondent No. 3 to serve any notice to the appellant under section 
If of the Act. On 5uch a stand taken by the appellant the entire Protection 
Act was not available. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing these appeals, this Court 
HELD : I.I. On the express language of Sectio!l 2(4)(ii)(a) of the 
Madras City Tenants Protection Act, the determination of tenancy agreement 
would be such determination as is referable to the unitateral act of omission 
F 
on the part of the landlord which results in determination of the lease 
agreement for no fault of the tenant. Under these circumstances the statutory G 
benefit would stand guaranteed by the legislative scheme env

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