B. NARAYANAN CHETTIAR Vs. S. ALAGAR THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai dismissing the appellant's appeal against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town in Execution Petition No. 72 of 1971 in Original Petition No. 92 of 1964. In O.S. No. 481 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Madurai Town, the appellant sued for ejectment of the respondent, his tenant. The tenant filed O.P. No. 92 of 1964 under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, which despite contest, was allowed.... Both the parties preferred appeals to the District Court, Madurai, which in modification of the order passed by the District Munsif, directed the tenant to pay the landlord a sum of Rs. 5006 -25 towards compensation for the property in question within three months from the date of that order. The appellate Court further directed that on the amount being paid or deposited into Court, O.P. No. 92 of 1964 shall stand allowed and in default of such payment or deposit the said O.P. shall stand dismissed. In pursuance of that order, the tenant deposited the amount into Court but the landlord failed to execute a conveyance in favour of the tenant, whereupon the tenant filed Execution Petition No. 724 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Madurai Town for a direction to the landlord to execute a conveyance in his favour in accordance with the order of the appellate Court. This execution petition was opposed by the landlord on the ground that no execution petition was maintainable inasmuch as the tenant had not obtained any final decretal order as contemplated under Section 9 (3) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. Another ground urged was that the tenant was liable to pay Rs. 750 -00 on account of arrears of rent after making the necessary adjustments and that he was not entitled to ask for a conveyance without payment of that amount. Both these contentions were over -ruled by the District Munsif who approved the draft sale -deed produced by the tenant and directed him to produce a fair sale -deed. Against this order, the landlord preferred C.M.A. No. 48 of 1972 on the file of the Court of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The sole objection raised in appeal was that the execution petition was not maintainable in law. The appellate Court held that the execution petition was maintainable and dismissed the appeal without costs. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) UNDER Section 9(1)(a) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, any tenant who is entitled to compensation under Section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted may within the period prescribed apply to the Court for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the Court, the whole or part of, the extent of the land specified in the application.

(3.) UNDER Section 9(2), in default of payment by the tenant of any one installment, the application shall stand dismissed. Under Clause (a) of Sub -section (3) of Section 9 on payment of the price fixed under Clause (b) of Sub -section (1), the Court shall pass an order directing the conveyance by the landlord to the tenant of the extent of land for which the said price was fixed. The Court shall by the same order direct the tenant to put the landlord into possession of the remaining extent of the land, if any. Under Section 9(3)(b), on the order referred to in Clause (a) being made the suit or proceeding shall stand dismissed and any decree or order in ejectment that might have been passed therein but which has not been executed shall be vacated.