THIRUNADUKKARASU MUBALIAR Vs. GOPAL NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff while the respondents are the legal representatives of the original tenant. In this appeal the appellants have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 26th February, 1998 in Civil Revision Petition No. 729 of 1992. By its impugned judgment and order the High Court allowed the civil revision petition preferred by the respondents and set aside the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Vellore in I.A. No. 656 of 1986 in O.S. No. 947 of 1975, dated February 4, 1992 which had the effect of dismissing the application filed by the respondents tenant under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court found that the respondents had complied with their obligations under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act having deposited the amount within time and, therefore, the application under Section 9 of the Act ought to be allowed and the appellants be directed to sell the land in question to the respondents.

(2.) The factual background in which the dispute arises is as follows: The plaintiff landlord filed OS No. 947 of 1975 claiming eviction of the tenant from the vacant site on which the tenant claimed to have raised a super structure. In the said suit for eviction, the tenant filed his written statement and claimed benefit of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. He also filed I.A. No. 180 of 1976 under Section 9 of the Act for an order of the Court directing the landlord to sell the site to him for such price as may be fixed by the Court. The trial court by its order of March 31, 1978 held the tenant entitled to purchase the suit site excluding 992 sq. ft. 3 sq. inches surrendered to the plaintiff, under Section 9 of the Act and fixed the price for 3801 sq. ft. 9 sq. inches at Rs. 26, 187.25 ps. at the rate of Rs. 7/ per sq. feet. Application under Section 9 of the Act as well as the suit was disposed of by the said order, the relevant part whereof reads as under:

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court, the landlord as well as the tenant preferred separate appeals. The tenant preferred C.M.A. No. 31 of 1979 while the landlord preferred C.M.A. No. 32 of 1979. It appears that the District Court had passed an order of stay whereby the tenant was obliged to deposit only an amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 3.70 per sq. feet. Ultimately the appeals came up for disposal before the Sub Court, Vellore. By its judgment and order of November 2, 1981 the appellate court dismissed C.M.A. No. 31 of 1979 preferred by the tenant and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord and enhanced the price of the site by determining its price @ Rs. 10/ per sq. feet. The operative part of the order, so far as it is relevant, reads as follows: