THE NEW THEATERS (CARNATIC TALKIES) LTD., COIMBATORE versus N. VAJRAPANI NAIDU

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 07-10-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
,. ' 
-
• 
• 
.THE NEW THEATRES {CARNATIC TALKIES) 
LTD., COIMBATORE. 
'· 
• 
N. VAJRAPANI NAIDU. 
[Y. v. CliANDRACHUD c :r .• R. s. PATHAK ANo 
SABirASACHI MuKHARn,.JJ.J. 
• 
October 1, 1983 
329 
, 
Madr<11 CIJy Tenant•, Protection Ac!": 1921 & Madra. Ciiy Tenant1, 
Protection (Amendment) Act, 1960 Section 9-Ejfect of the amendln{f act-
ApplicabllilY to pendln{f proceedln1• . 
. The respondent and his mother granted a lease in respect of an open site 
of land for a period. of 20 years in favour of a peraon. who constructed a 
•theatre thereon and who later assigned his riglits to the appellant and the appel-
lant was accepted as ·a tenant by the respondent. The respondent subsequentJ1 
served notice upon the appetiant calling upon it to vacate the property and to· 
surrender vacant possession of the site. · ThO appellant refused, and set up 
· can oral agreement entitling it to an extension of the lease for a further period 
of 20 years. The respondent filed a suit for ejectment against the appellant 
lnd the appellant filed a suit for specific performande Or an agreement to · 
extend the lca1e. The 1ubordinate-Court decreed .the responderit's suit for 
possession with mesne profits and diamiised. the appellant's suit. 
The appellant appealed to the High Court against the two decrees, and 
during their pendency the Madras City Tenanto' Protection Act, 1921 was 
extended to the town where th• 1uit propei:ty wa•.•ituated. The appellant 
thereupon filed- a Civil Miscellaneom: Petition in tho appeal arising out or the 
suit for ejectmen't. for directions" under section 9.ofthe Act (or sale of the ~it• . 
This application waa resisted by the reapoD.dent oli •the ground ihat section 9 
was void. The Righ Court upheld the yalidity of the section, declared the 
appellant entitled to- purchase the site under section 9 Snd remitted the matter 
A 
B 
c 
D 
• 
to the subordin~tc..Court for appointmo:nt of a Commissioner to fix the market 
G 
value of the site. Against that order the respondent preferred a Letters Patent 
Appeal which was dismissed and this order' was confirmed by the Supreme 
Court. 
• During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, section 9 of the Madras· 
City Tenants' Protection Act was amended by Madras Act No. XIII of 1960. 
· H 
The respondent filed two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions In the Hi1h Court 
praying for review and modification of the earlier order in•view of the amended 
~lion 9, and for at~y of the valuation· procee<IJnas. 
I 
B 
n· 
'E. 
' 
0 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
· [1984) 1 s.c.R. 
After the dismissal of the respondent's appeal in the Supreme Court, the 
High Court dismissed. the pending appeals as withdrawn transferred the two 
Civil Miscellaneous Petitions to !he trial court and directed it to fix the market 
value of the site and pass final orders. The suborditlate-Court lield that the 
respondent was entitled to the benefit of the anlendCd section 9, and directed 
·the Comn1issioner to determine the minimum extent of land necessary for 
convenient enjoyment and ~x the price on Hie basis of the average inarket value 
of the land during the three years immediately preceding the dat~ of its order. 
The appeal to the District Court and thC Civil Revision Petition in· the High 
Court against this order were dismissed. 
In thC appeal to this Court tt was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that the amended section 9 Of _the Madras City Tenants' Proteciion Act, could 
. not be invoked, and that Kction 9, as it s.t9od before.the amendment, governed 
the rights.of the parties, aiid that in an'y event th~ amended section 9 should 
have been invoked in the appeal peridiDg ill the Supren1e Court, and' that relief 
not havin&: been sougbt there-,.it wa, not open to the respondent io seek relief 
after the appeal had been disposed of by the Supreme Court. · 
. 
. 
. 
. 
Dismissing the· appeal, the, Court. 
HELD : I (i) If the suit was pending on the date when the amendments 
in the principal Act (Madras.City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921) were bfought 
into force, the amended provisions of the Act will govern the disposal of the 
suit. [337 DJ 
(ii) The suit continued pendin& on the date When the principal Act was 
amended.by Act )(Ill of 1960. ConS:equently, it was governed by the provisions 
of the amended section,9. As the scheme Under thC original section stood 
superseded by the scheme enacted. under the amended section, tho order of 
July 2S, 1958 stood aborted and pursuant to the am

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