S. VENKITACHALAM IYER versus S. RAMA IYER

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 21 · Decided: 12-09-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S. VENKITACHALAM IYER 
A 
v. 
S. RAMA IYER 
--7-
SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ, M.H.KANIA AND 
B 
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.) 
Tamil Nadu Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 : Sections 9 and 10--
Tenant-Eviction of-Decree passed-Compensation for superstnicture built 
k 
by tenants predecessor-in-interest and purchased by tenant-Execution 
• 
c 
proceedings pending-Right of tenant to require the landlord to sell the land 
for beneficial enjoyment of the superstntcture-W/zether affected. 
The lands in question owned by a Trust, of which the appellant was 
the Managing Trustee, were leased to respondent. On his failure to pay 
rent the Trust filed a suit for his ejectment. The District Munsiff passed 
the decree on condition that the appellant would pay the respondent, D 
costs of the ~uilding or superstructure, which had been built by the 
respondent•s predecessor-in-interest~ and which the respondent had pur-
chased from him. The litigation went upto High Court, which ultimately 
upheld the decree. During the pendency of second appeal, the respondent 
filed before the District Munsiff an application under Section 9 of the 
Tamil Nadu Tenants' Protection Act, 1921. as amended by Act XIX of 1955 
E 
and Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1969. The provisions of the 
said Act were extended to the town in which the lands were situated. In the 
said application he prayed for the issue of a direction to the appellant to 
sell to the respondent the said property, the land adjoining the building, 
as it was necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the building. The ap-
plication was rejected on the ground that such a prayer had been rejected F 
earlier. The respondent's first appeal was allowed by the Subordinate 
Judge. The respondent had not surrendered the po.ssession of the proper-
ty despite the deposit of the compensation amount by the appellant and 
the execution proceedings had remained stayed. Hence the appellant filed 
an appeal in ·the High Court which, however, held that the respondent was 
entitled to file the application under Section 9 of the Act during the pen-
G 
dency of the execution proceedings, and the right of the respondent had 
not been affected by the deposit of the compensation amount. 
--( 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant Managing 
Trustee, it was contended that the respondent was not entitled to exercise 
his right to purchase the land immediately adjoining the superstructure as 
might be required for the beneficial enjoyment of the said structure as the H 
21 
22 
SUPREME 
COURT REPORTS 
(1991) 
SUPP. 
1 S. C. R 
A said structure had not been put up by him, and that although the 
respondent might have been in possession at the relevant time, he had lost 
+-
the possession thereafter and hence he had lost his right under Section 9. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
B 
HELD : 1.1 Under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Tenants' Protection 
Act, 1921, any tenant, as defined in Section 2(4)(ii)(a), who is entitled to 
compensation under Section 3, and against whom a suit in ejectment has 
been instituted or proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small 
Causes Court Act, 1882, taken by the landlord may, within one month from 
C the date of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955, 
coming into force, or the date with effect from which this Act is extended to 
the municipal town or village in which the land is situated, or within one 
month after the service on him of summons, apply to the Court for an 
order that the landlord be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the 
D court, the whole or part of the extent of land specified in the application. 
Section 10 of th~ Act makes the provisions under Section 9 applicable to 
cases where decree for ejectment has not been executed before the date 
from which the provisions of the Act are extended to the area in question. 
[25 C-EJ 
E 
1.2 · In the instant case, although the decree for ejectment was passed 
F 
G 
against the respondent, as he had continued to remain in possession of the 
property and the decree had remained unexecuted till the date on which 
the provisions of the said Act had been extended to the area in question, 
the right of the respondent under Section 9 was not lost. [25 FJ 
1.3 As regards the superstructure, it was put up by the predecessor 
in interest from whom the respondent had purchased. Thus, the High 
Court was entitled to take the view that it was put up by a predecessor-in

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