V. SANJEEVARAYA MUDALIAR versus N. A. RAGHAVACHARY

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 19-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

158 
V. SANJEEVARAYA MUDALIAR 
v. 
N.A.RAGHAVACHARY 
September 19, 1968 
A 
[S. M. SIKRl, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JI.] 
B 
Madras City Tenant's Protection Act, 21 of 1922, ss. 2, 3, 9 and 12--
Tenant of vacant site in backyard of residential house whether a tenant 
of land under s. 2(2)-Written lease deed containing stipulation against 
raisinR of permanent structures-Such stioulc.tion whether 
one as 
to 
erection of buildings within meaning of proviso to s. 12-Brecch of such 
stipulation by tenant-Tenant whether can take advantage of ss. 2 and 
9 thereafter. 
The respondent, by a registered lease deed, let to the appellant for 
a pe'riod of five years the backyard of a residential house in Madras. The 
backyard consisted of vacant land. 
According to the lease deed the 
appellant was allowed inter alia to boil and dry paddy on the said land 
and he was also allowed to erect a temporary shed for keeping the paddy 
on condition that while vacating the land he would dismantle the same. 
The deed also specifically provided that the appellant "should not erect 
any kind of permanent super-structure on the said vacant site so as to 
entitle him to claim in future the value thereof." In continuation of his 
stipulation the appellant erected permanent super-structures on the land. 
On the expiry of the lease of the appellant refused to vacate the land. 
The respondent thereupon filed a suit for his eviction. The appellant 
claimed protection under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921; 
Within the prescribed time he filed an application under s. 9 of the Act 
asking for an order that the respondent be directed to sell the land for 
a price to be fixed by the court. The trial court decreed the respondent's 
suit. 
The first appellate court rever&ed the decree of the trial court but 
the High Court restored it. 
In appeal by special leave to this Court the 
questions t·hat fell for determination were : (i) Is the tenant of a vacant 
site in the backyard of a residential house a tenant of land within the 
purview of s. 2(2) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921? 
(ii) Having regard to the proviso to s. 12 is such a tenant entitled to 
the protection of ss. 3 and 9 of the Act in a case when he has erected 
buildings on the land in contravention of an express stipulated in · a 
registered deed·? 
HELD : (i) If the respondent had let the residential building together 
with its appurtenant land the tenancy would not be a tenancy of land 
within the meaning of the Ac\t. 
But the respondent did not let the 
building with land appurtenant thereto. He retained the building and 
let the land separately. 
The letting was of land and nothing else. The 
appellant was not a tenant of a building as defined in s. 2 ( 1) either be-
fore or after its amendment by Madras Act XIII of 1960. He was a tenant 
of land as defined ins. 2(2). [162 A.CJ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(ii) (a) , Under s. 3 a tenant on ejectment is entitled to be paid as 
compensation the value of any 
building erected 
by him. 
A 
tenant 
entitled to 
compensation 
under s. 3 and against whom a 
suit for 
ejectment has been instituted is entitled to purchase the whole or part 
H 
• 
' 
of the land by invoking the procedure under s. 9. The effect of the 
<:: ·• 
main part of s. 12 is that nothing in any contract made by a tenant takes 
~way or limits his ri~ und~r ss. 3 and 
9, 
The proviso 
to s, 12, 
• 
• 
v. s. MUDALIAR V. N. A. RAGHAVACHARY (Bachawat, .T.) !59 
however, saves stipulations as 
to erections of 
buildings 
made by a 
A 
tenant in a registered writing. [162 D-EJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(b) A stipulation as to the erection of buildings made orally or in 
an unregistered writing is not protected by the proviso and a tenant erect-
ing a building in breach of the covenant is entitled to the benefits of ss. 3 
and 9. [162 E-F] 
R. V. Naidu v. Naraindas, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 110 and Naraindos v. 
Naidu, (1963) 1 M.L.J. 140, referred to. 
( c) A stipulatiOn for giving vacant land after demolition of the build-
ing which the tenant has b~en authorised to construct thereon is not 
one as to the erection of buildings within the proviso to s. 12. Therefore 
in the present case the stipulation that the appellant could erect a tempo-
rary shed on condition that while vacating the land he would dismantle 
the same was not protected by the proviso to s. 12. [164 C-D] 
Vajrapani Naidu v. New Theatre Carnatic Talkies, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 
1015, relied on. 
Vajrapuri v. New Theat

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