R SOMANATHAN AND CO Vs. P SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.400/74 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin, is the revision petitioner. The case has had a long and chequered career. It is necessary to have a background of the case.

(2.) The suit was filed by the revision petitioner against one Petchimuthu Asari, father of the respondent herein, who was the third defendant in the suit for eviction. Pending proceedings Petchimuthu died. His wife, daughter and son, the respondents herein, were impleaded as parties. The question which arose for consideration in the suit was whether Petchimuthu and subsequent to his death, his legal representatives were entitled to the benefit of the City Tenants Protection Act. The suit was originally dismissed. A review petition was filed on the ground that the Act had not been extended to the area in which the property was situated. The review petition was allowed. It was held that the tenant and on his death his legal representatives were not entitled to the benefits of the said Act. There were civil miscellaneous appeals filed in C.M.A.Nos.4, 5, 6 and 12 of 1976. By judgment dated 19.2.1977 it was held that the tenants were entitled to the benefits of the Act. The case was remitted with a direction to decide the question of market value. Aggrieved by the remand order, the revision petitioner filed C.R.P.No.1118/77. The decision of the lower Appellate Court was confirmed by this Court by order dated 6-5-1980. There was a Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated 14-10-1992 dismissed the Special Leave Petition with costs quantified at Rs.1000/- to the respondents herein. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the revision petitioner again wanted the trial Court to take up the issue as to whether the defendants were entitled to the benefits of the Act, as, according to the revision petitioner, the tenant had denied the title of the plaintiff landlord and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits of the Act. It was also brought to the notice of the trial Judge that even in the appeal filed by the defendants before the District Court, he had denied the title of the landlord and even though the said contention was not raised, the fact remained that there was denial of title, which could not be brushed aside and therefore, a fresh decision was required whether the defendants were entitled to the benefits of the Act. Again, the trial Court held that the denial of title would disentitle the tenants from claiming the benefits of the Act. There was an appeal filed in C.M.A.No.9/96 by the respondents. The Appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court and held that the denial of title was bona fide and when the same was not pursued, that could not be a ground to be taken note of by the Court. The Appellate Court further found that the previous orders concluded the matter and the same could not be reopened on some other ground. The appeal was allowed against which a civil revision petition was filed in C.R.P.No.2868/96. By order dated 12-2-1997 S.S. SUBRAMANI, J., as the learned Judge then was, dismissed the civil revision petition holding that the order of remand restricted the scope of enquiry, after holding that the applicants in the various suits were entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act and that it was only to decide the market value the remand order was passed. Thereafter, the matter went to the trial Court and the trial Court fixed the price for the site at Rs.13,058/- by order dated 18-7-2001 to be decided within a period of 30 days therefrom.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondents took out an application for amendment of the decree with regard to the Schedule by saying that the petition property measured north-south 58 feet 6 inches and east-west 16 feet 3 inches of a total area of 955.18 sq.feet = 2.19 cents, as, according to the respondents, there had been a clerical mistake instead of mentioning as 57 feet, it was mentioned as 47 feet, though the description of the boundaries had been correctly given.