V. K. A. RANGANATHA KONAR versus THE TIRUCHIRAPPALLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 645 · Decided: 18-12-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
• 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
,_ ' .. ,-
... 
645 
,1,. 
V. K. A. RANGANATHA KONAR 
v. 
\. 
THE TIRUCHIRAPPALLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BY ITS 
cor.mnSSIONER, AND ANOTHER 
December 18, 1964 
[P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO AND 
J. C. SHAH, JJ.] 
The Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (Mad. Act 3 of 
1922), ss. 4Q) and 4(4)-Land/ord to pay 
compensation 
to 
evicted 
tenant for improvements on land-Decree in favour of landlord und.tr 1. 
4( 1) not specifying time within which payment to be made-Payment not 
made within three months-Provisions of 1., 4(4) whether attracte~ 
Suit whether liable to be dismissed. 
' 
The appellant was the tenant of respondent No. 1 on·. a piece of 
land and had built a cinema home thereon. On the expiry of the leaoe, 
respondent No. 1 filed a suit for rent and eviction against the appellant 
and his sub-lessee. The suit was decreed. Under s. 4(1) of the Madras 
City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, the court determined the value of 
the superstructures made by the appellant, and the decree said that posse1-
sion of the suit properties was to be delivered to ·respondent No. 1 on th• 
latter making payment of the compensation for the 
superstrucrures 
u 
determined by the court. 
The decree did not specify the time durinz 
which the payment was to be made. 
According to •. 4(4) of the Act 
the compen,.tion money had to be paid within three months of 
the passing of the decree in the landlord's favour, otherwise the landlord's 
suit would stand dismissed. Respondent No. 1 paid 
the 
compensation 
money into court after the said period of three months had expired and 
prayed to the court that the decree be amended by specifying the tim• 
during which the payment was to be made. 
The court amended th• 
decree by inserting therein that the payment was to be made within three 
months from the passing of the original decree. Thu• respondent No. 1 
remained in ·default under s. 4(4) and the court dismissed the suit. Res-
pondent No. 1 appealed to the High Court which held that s. 4(4) did 
not come into play when the decree under s. 4(1) did not specify tho 
period within which payment was to be made and its decision , went in 
fayour of respondent No. I. The appellant then applied for a certificato 
of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court which was grant-ed. 
It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the provision prescribed 
by s. 4(4) is mandatory and any defect in the decree which is passed 
under s. 4(1) cannot help the plaintiff-landlord to circumvent the effect 
of the said provision. 
On behalf of the respondent No. 1 it was urged 
thats. 4(1) should be read as controlling s. 4(4), first a decree must be 
properly passed under s. 4(1) specifying the period of three month• within 
which the amount should be paid and then only s. 4(4) could be invoked. 
HELD : The Hig!J. Court was in error in reversing the order passwed -
by the trial court. 
H 
(i) The controversy had to be decided in the light of the object of 
the Act. The object was clearly to give protection to tenants who had 
taken open land on lease and had built superstructure• on it in the hope 
that as long as they paid rent they would not be evicted. (649 H] 
/ 
646 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[1965] 2 S.C.R 
(ii) Having regard to the mandatory terms in which s. 
4(4) 
is . A 
couched it would not be reasonable to construe s. 4(1) as controlling 
1. 4 ( 4). The relevant clause provides that the decree should direct that 
on payment by the landlord into court, within 
three months, of the 
amount found- due, the tenant shall put the landlord into possession. The 
clause in respect of the payment by the landlord into court within three 
months amount to a condition which has to be satisfied by the landlord 
before the tenant is' required to deliver to him possession of the property 
in question. 
In other words, reference to the payment by the landlord 
of the amount found due within the specific period in s. 4(1) is not w 
much, a direction issued by the court as specification of a condition expres. 
sly and independently provided by s. 4(4). (651 D-F] 
(iii) In s. 4(4) the expression "the decree passed under sub-s. (!)" 
merely describes the sub-section under which the decree is passed, the 
emphasis in the context being on the date of the said decree and not so 
much on the strict compliance with the form prescribed in s. 4( 1). The 
logical way to reconcile s. 4(1) and s. 4( 4) would be to treat the provi-
sion prescri

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