LexS. BHAGIRATH AMMAL versus PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A S. BHAGIRATH AMMAL y'._ v. PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION DECEMBER 6, 2007 B [B.N. AGRA WAL, P.P. NAOLEKARAND P.SATHASIVAM,JJ.) Rent Control and Eviction: c Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921: s. 1 (3) proviso (j) (as inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 2of1996, and s. 9-Purchase of rented land by tenant-Exemption to land belonging to 'religious institution '-Suit by land owner for recovery of possession D of land-Application under s. 9 by tenant for purchase of land-During \. pendency of proceedings, Amendment Act 2of1996 coming into force- Effect of-HELD: Land owner being a 'religious institution' within the meaning of s.1 (3) proviso(/), entitled to benefit of the amendment Act-With coming intoforce of amendment Act, proceedings instituted E by tenant u/s 9 would abate~Decree passed thereafter in favour of tenant became a nullity and executing court committed an error in executing the sale deed-Abatement-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- s.114-0r. 47, r.1-Review. F s. 9 rlw proviso (j) to s.1 (3)-"Conveyance" of title-Proceedings u/s 9 for purchase of rented land by tenant pending- Meanwhile proviso (j) to s.1 (3) inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 2of1996 coming into force- HELD: Decree having not been executed by proper document conveying title, proceedings u/s 9 are deemed to be pending and are G determined with coming into force of the Amendment Act - The view to the contrary, as expressed in Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam v. Kasthuriammal, [2006] 2 MLJ 281 (FB) is overruled. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.' H 1050 S.BHAGIRATHAMMAL v. PALANlROMAN 1051 CATHOLIC MISSION ..,.r-._, Or. 47, r.1-Review-Held: Jf the judgment/order is vitiated by an A :ipparent error or it is pulpably wrong and the error is itself evident, review is permissible-On facts, High Court rightly applied the principles. Respondent-Mission, the owner of the suit land leased it out B to the appellant tenant for a specified period. The tenant raised t ·~ structure thereon. After expiry of the lease period, the Mission filed O.S. No.218of1969 for recovery of the land. However, both the parties reached a compromise and the suit was accordingly disposed of. Since the tenant did not vacate the premises the landlord filed a c fresh suit being O.S. No.76of1977 whereas the tenants filed O.P. No.4of1977 in the said suit for purchase the suit land in terms of s.9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. The trial court decreed O.S. 76of1997 and dismissed O.P. No. 4of1977. The tenant filed two appeals, one against the decree in O.S. D ,.., No.76 ofi977 and the other against the order in O.P. No.4 of1977. The first appellate court, allowed both the appeals of the tenant. The landlord filed a second appeal against the judgment setting aside the decree passed in its favour and a revision petition against the order allowing O.P. No.4of1977 of the tenant. The High Court dismissed E both the appeal as also the revision petition. The SLP filed by the landlord was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the tenant deposited the full site value and filed an execution petition i.e. E.P. No.257of1985 for execution of the sale deed of the land/ property in question in her favour. On the other hand, the landlord F --i filed an execution petition being E.P.No. 79of1983 for executing the compromise decree in O.S. No. 218 of1969. The executing coui1 allowed E.P. No.257of1985 filed by the tenant and dismissed EP No. 79/83 filed by the landlord. The landlord filed a revision petition being CRP. No.1445 of1988 againstthe order in E.P. No. 79 of1983 G and an appeal being A.A.O. No. 767 of1989 against the order in E.P. No.257of1985. Both the matters were dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 26. 7.1997 upholding the directions of the executing court to execute the sale deed in favour of the tenant. Consequently, the sale deed in favour of the tenant was executed by the Court on H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A 28.10.1996. The landlord unsuccessfully filed SLPs before the Supreme Court. Thereafter review applications being Review Application Nos.8 and 9 of 1997 were filed by the landlord in the High Court against its order dated 26. 7.1997, but the same were dismissed. The landlord challenged the order in S.L.Ps. before the Supreme B Court, which passed an order of remand of Review Applications No.8 and 9 of1977. Meanwhile the Madras City Tenants P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.