Shri Adaikalasami (dead) by Lrs. Vs. The Idol of Aruligu Subramaniaswami
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 1994
Petitioner: Shri Adaikalasami (dead) by Lrs.
Respondent: The Idol of Aruligu Subramaniaswami
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6588 of 1994
Judges: V.N. KHARE & ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 20, 2002
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921
Sections 4(4), 11 – Benefit under – Availability – Initial suit for possession compromised – On tenant not vacating the premises, fresh suit brought and decreed by High Court – Decree put to execution – Resisted on grounds of limitation – Plea of benefit under the Act, not specifically raised – Plea under section 11 raised in subsequent suit, but rejected by High Court. Held that on facts, the benefit under section 4(4) was not available to tenant. Appeal dismissed.
Held:
It is not disputed that the second suit filed in the year 1960 was based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in the year 1956. It was not a suit simplicitor for ejectment from the premises where the Act could be made applicable. In the suit which was ultimately decided on the basis of the compromise, the tenant did not raise any plea of benefit of the provisions of the Act. However, the tenant raised the plea of benefit of section 11 of the Act in the subsequent suits. But the said plea was rejected by the High Court and the special leave petition filed against the said judgment was dismissed. In that view of the matter, it is not open to the appellants to take benefit of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The judgment-debtor tenant is in appeal before us. As far back in the year 1955, the plaintiff-respondent herein who is the landlord, filed a suit for arrears of rent and possession. The said suit was numbered as O.S. No. 82/1955. On 1.3.1956, the parties to the suit arrived at a compromise. It was agreed between the parties that the appellant herein, who was the tenant, shall be permitted to be in possession of the suit property as a lessee for a period of three years and at the end of the lease period, he would hand over the possession to the landlord after the landlord pays to him the value of super-structure prevailing on that date. It is not disputed that the respondent did not pay any money to the tenant and he continued to remain in possession thereafter. In the year 1960, the landlord again brought a suit on the basis of the compromise decree. The relief sought in the suit was for recovery of possession and arrears of damages. The suit was numbered as O.S. No. 12/1960. Initially, the said suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the landlord was also dismissed. However, the second appeal filed by the landlord was allowed in part and the suit for possession was decreed. However, on the question of quantum of compensation payable by the landlord to the tenant, the matter was remanded to the trial court. It is alleged that the special leave petition filed against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed by this Court. It is not disputed that on remand, the trial court fixed the quantum of compensation. However, the landlord was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the trial court. As a result, he preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court allowed the appeal of the landlord. In the year 1983, the landlord put the decree in execution. In the said execution case, the tenant raised an objection that the decree sought to be executed is barred by limitation. It is relevant to notice that the plea of benefit of the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was not specifically raised in the suit. The said objection filed by the tenant was rejected by the executing court. Thereafter, the tenant preferred a revision petition before the High Court which was also rejected. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the tenant is in appeal before us.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in view of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Act, the landlord having not deposited the compensation within three months from the date of the decree, the execution petition filed by the landlord was liable to be rejected. We do not find any merit in the argument.
3. It is not disputed that the second suit filed in the year 1960 was based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in the year 1956. It was not a suit simplicitor for ejectment from the premises where the Act could be made applicable. In the suit which was ultimately decided on the basis of the compromise, the tenant did not raise any plea of benefit of the provisions of the Act. However, the tenant raised the plea of benefit of section 11 of the Act in the subsequent suits. But the said plea was rejected by the High Court and the special leave petition filed against the said judgment was dismissed. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that it is not open to the appellants to take benefit of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The judgment-debtor tenant is in appeal before us. As far back in the year 1955, the plaintiff-respondent herein who is the landlord, filed a suit for arrears of rent and possession. The said suit was numbered as O.S. No. 82/1955. On 1.3.1956, the parties to the suit arrived at a compromise. It was agreed between the parties that the appellant herein, who was the tenant, shall be permitted to be in possession of the suit property as a lessee for a period of three years and at the end of the lease period, he would hand over the possession to the landlord after the landlord pays to him the value of super-structure prevailing on that date. It is not disputed that the respondent did not pay any money to the tenant and he continued to remain in possession thereafter. In the year 1960, the landlord again brought a suit on the basis of the compromise decree. The relief sought in the suit was for recovery of possession and arrears of damages. The suit was numbered as O.S. No. 12/1960. Initially, the said suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the landlord was also dismissed. However, the second appeal filed by the landlord was allowed in part and the suit for possession was decreed. However, on the question of quantum of compensation payable by the landlord to the tenant, the matter was remanded to the trial court. It is alleged that the special leave petition filed against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed by this Court. It is not disputed that on remand, the trial court fixed the quantum of compensation. However, the landlord was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the trial court. As a result, he preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court allowed the appeal of the landlord. In the year 1983, the landlord put the decree in execution. In the said execution case, the tenant raised an objection that the decree sought to be executed is barred by limitation. It is relevant to notice that the plea of benefit of the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was not specifically raised in the suit. The said objection filed by the tenant was rejected by the executing court. Thereafter, the tenant preferred a revision petition before the High Court which was also rejected. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the tenant is in appeal before us.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in view of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Act, the landlord having not deposited the compensation within three months from the date of the decree, the execution petition filed by the landlord was liable to be rejected. We do not find any merit in the argument.
3. It is not disputed that the second suit filed in the year 1960 was based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in the year 1956. It was not a suit simplicitor for ejectment from the premises where the Act could be made applicable. In the suit which was ultimately decided on the basis of the compromise, the tenant did not raise any plea of benefit of the provisions of the Act. However, the tenant raised the plea of benefit of section 11 of the Act in the subsequent suits. But the said plea was rejected by the High Court and the special leave petition filed against the said judgment was dismissed. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that it is not open to the appellants to take benefit of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
