GURUSWAMI CHETTIAR Vs. SAVITHRI ANIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner obtained a lease of land from the first respondent Savithri Ammal and raised a superstructure of his own on the demised land. THE property was situate within the limits of Kumbakonam Municipality to which the provisions of the City Tenants" Protection Act, 1921, were extended with effect from 14th December, 1955. THE landlady Savithri Ammal filed a suit, O. S. No. 7 of 1964, on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, for ejecting the tenant, from the land. THE suit summons was served on the tenant on 11th February, 1964. Within a month's time from the service of summs, on 10th March, 1964, the tenant filed O. P. No. 10 of 1964, on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, under section 9 of the Madras City Tenants" Protection Act, 1922 seeking the aid of the Court to obtain from the landlady, by purchase the demised land on which he had constructed the superstructure. THE Sub-Court decreed the landlady's ejectment suit on 30th October, 1965, subject to the results of the tenant's application in O. P. No. 10 of 1964, against the decree in ejectment. THE tenant filed an appeal before the District Judge of West Thanjavur, in A. S. No. 265 of 1975. This appeal by the tenant was allowed by the District Court on 18th June, 1966. THEreupon, apparently, under some instructions, the tenant represented before the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam that he was not pressing his application under section 9 of the Act, that is to say O. P. No. 10 of 1964, on granting liberty to the tenant to renew the application. Meanwhile, the landlady filed a second appeal in this Court in S. A. No. 224 of 1967 against the decision of the District Court which dismissed her suit for ejectment. This Court allowed the second appeal on 28th January, 1972. THE result was that the decree in ejectment passed by the Sub-Court was restored.

(2.) THE landlady then caused a notice to be issued to the tenant for rendering vacant possession of the property. That notice was served on the tenant on 26th July, 1976. On 12th August, 1976, the tenant filed O. P. No. 41 of 1976 in the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, purporting to be an application under section 9 of the City Tenants" Protection Act, 1922. This application was said to be in renewal of the earlier application for a similar relief, O. P. No. 10 of 1964, which was dismissed on 28th September, 1966, as not pressed.

(3.) I therefore uphold the decision of the Court below as correct in law. The civil revision petition is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.