THIRUNAVUKARASU MUDALIAR (DEAD) BY LRS. versus GOPAL NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
THIRUNA VUKARASU MUDALIAR (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
GOPAL NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS. 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921-Section 9-Suit by 
landlord for eviction of tenant-Application by tenant under the Act for 
directing landlord to sell suit-land was allowed by trial court-Appellate C 
court partly allowed the appeal of the landlord by enhancing the price of 
the suit-land-High Court partly allowed the Revision Petition of the 
landlord by ji1rther enhancing the price and directing the tenant to approach 
trial court for seeking time to deposit enhanced amount-Tenant depositing 
entire price of suit-land before expiry of maximum statutory period from the 
date of the judgment of the High Court without seeking extension of time from D 
trial court-Application by landlord before trial court for dismissing the 
application of the tenant for default in payment within prescribed period was 
allowed-Revision Petition by the tenant was allowed by the High Court-
Correctness of-Held, under the Act, the application of the tenant is liable 
to be dismissed if the tenant defaults in payment of price fixed by the Court E 
within prescribed period unless the order is stayed by a superior court-On 
facts, the tenant defaulted in payment within prescribed period and since no 
extension of time was sought from the Court, the application of the tenant 
under the Act stands dismissed. 
Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of respondent-tenant from suit F 
land before trial court. The respondent filed an application before the trial 
court under section 9 of the Madras City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921 for 
directing the landlord to sell the suit-land. The trial court allowed the 
application of the respondent fixing the price of the suit-land at a rate and 
disposed of the suit of the appellant. The appellant and the respondent filed 
separate appeals before appellate court. The appellate court passed an interim G 
order of stay. The appellate court finally dismissed the appeal of the respondent 
and partly allowed the appeal of the appellant with costs by enhancing the rate 
of the land to be paid by the respondent. The appellant preferred a Civil 
Revision Petition before High Court. The respondent deposited costs and made 
469 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] ~UPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A no deposit of the price of the suit-land determined by the appellate court The 
High Court partly allowed the Civil Revision Petition by enhancing the rate 
of the land further and directed the respondent to approach the trial court for 
taking time to deposit the balance amount in the court. The respondent did 
not approach the trial court for taking time, but instead, deposited the amount 
before the trial court just within 3 years from the date of the judgment and 
B order of the High Court and filed an application for execution of sa~e deed 
under the Act. The appellant filed an application before the trial court to 
dismiss section 9 application of the respondent under the Act on the ground 
of non-payment of the price of the lane! within the prescribed period fixed by 
the court. The trial court allowed the application of the appellant. The 
C respondent filed Civil Revision Petition before High Court. The High Court 
allowed the Civil Revision Petition holding that the effective decree is the 
decree passed by the final court by applying the principle of merger of decrees; 
and that since the final decree fixes no time for payment of the amount, the 
maximum period of 3 years under the Act must be allowed to the tenant to 
deposit the price of the land determined by the final court. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, once 
an order is passed by the court determining the amount to be paid by way of 
sale price and the period within which the payment is to be made is also 
E determined, the law takes over and provides that if the tenant defaults in 
making the payment as directed, the application filed by him under section 
9(1)(a) of the Act shall stand dismissed under section 9(2) of the Act. The 
tenant having not complied with the order of the appellate court inasmuch as 
he did not make any deposit pursuant to the express direction of the court, 
F and of the order of the High Court inasmuch as he never moved the trial court 
for granting him time to make the deposit, it must be held that the tenant was 
in d

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