PADMASANI AMMAL Vs. DEVARAJA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in the above appeals and civil revision petition was the defendant in O. S. No. 3185 of 1960 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The suit was filed by the appellant in the above appeals and petitioner in the civil revision petition on 23-12-1960 for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and future rent till delivery of possession, on the ground that the appellant is the landlady of the vacant site occupied by the respondent and that the respondent should be evicted from the suit land. The respondent filed an application under section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) praying that, inasmuch as the respondent had built the superstructure on the suit land, the appellant must be directed to sell the suit land to him for the price fixed by the court in accordance with law. The court ordered that petition. But, unfortunately, the respondent was not able to pay the amount, fixed by the court, as compensation for taking possession of the suit land. Then on an application by the appellant the court fixed the value of the superstructure at Rs. 3000 and directed the appellant to deposit on or before 12-3-1969 the said sum of Rs. 3000 towards compensation for the value of the superstructure put up by the respondent. The said order was passed on 12-11-1968. On 11-3-1969, the appellant deposited Rs. 596 after adjusting the arrears of rent and costs payable by the defendant. On 15-3-1969, the appellant filed E. P. 538 of 1969 for delivery of possession, and took delivery of the suit property on 19-2-1970. Meanwhile, on 18-2-1969, the appellant filed IA, 4113, 4114 and 4115 of 1969 for review of the judgment, for amendment of the decree and for excusing the delay in filing the said applications. On 20-2-1970 the respondent filed three applications in IA, 3281, 3282 and 3283 of 1970 for dismissing the suit (O. S. 3185 of 1969) for an injunction restraining the appellant from pulling down the superstructure that stands on the disputed land and for redelivery of the superstructure taken possession of by the appellant, respectively. The respondent also filed E. A. 751 of 1970 on the execution side, for redelivery of the superstructure taken from him. On 9-9-1970 the appellant made an endorsement on the applications in I. A. 4113, 4114 and 4115 of 1969 as not pressing them; and on that, they were dismissed. On 16-6-1971, the appellants filed by the respondent (I. A. Nos. 3281 to 3283 of 1970) were allowed by the trial Court. But the executing court dismissed his E. A. 751 of 1970 filed for re-delivery. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the execution application, the respondent preferred C. M. A. 5 of 1971 and aggrieved by the orders allowing I. A. 3281 to 3283 of 1970 the appellant preferred C. M. A. 71 to 73 of 1971 before the Principal City Civil Judge, Madras. The Principal City Civil Judge heard all the above four C. M. As. together, allowed c. M. A. 5 of 1971 and dismissed the rest of the C. M. As. Aggrieved by the orders of the Principal City Civil Judge, the appellant has preferred C. M. S. A. 139 of 1971 against the decision in C. M. A. 5 of 1971, C. M. A. 25 of 1972 against the decision in C. M. A. 71 of 1971, C. R. P. 570 of 1972 against the decision in C. M. A. 72 of 1971 and C. M. S. A. No. 140 of 1971 against the decision in C. M. A. 73 of 1971.

(2.) THE main grounds on which the respondent herein succeeded before the lower appellate court were (i) that the landlady (appellant) had not deposited the compensation amount within three months from the date of the decree in the suit and as such the suit had to be dismissed under Section4 (4) of the Act; and (ii)that the deposit after adjustment of the arrears of rent and costs payable by the respondent towards the amount of compensation was not a proper 'deposit' and as such the appellant had not complied with the order.

(3.) THIRU Parasaran, the learned counsel for the appellant and petitioner, in the C. R. P. , raised five contentions; and they are as follows-- (i) The decree has given more time than that fixed by the statute and as such it cannot be said that the decree is a nullity. Hence the executing court's order of delivery of possession is valid, since the executing court cannot go behind the terms of the decree. (ii) Even if the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were erroneous on a point of law, the same will operate as res judicata so long as they are not set aside on appeal. (iii) The trial Court having given more time than that prescribed by the statute, the party getting the benefit of such a decree cannot be damnified, since the act of court cannot prejudice the rights of the party. (iv) According to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant has complied with the terms and as such no adverse order can be passed against her. (v) And the respondent being a sub-tenant cannot have the protection under the Act.