PADMANABHA MUDALIAR Vs. E B PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in E.P.No.251 of 1982 is the petitioner herein. THE respondent herein filed the execution petition for delivery of possession after removing the superstructure standing on the vacant land comprised in R.S.No. 353/29 and 353/53 measuring about 2,767 sq.ft. It is the case of the respondent herein that he filed Ejectment Suit No. 206 of 1966 against one P.S.M. Shanmugam and at that time, the said Shanmugham had constructed a superstructure at No. 43-C, Perambur High Road, Madras, which is now known as 43-B/1 and now numbered as 60, Perambur High Road. In that ejectment suit, the said Shanmugham filed an application under Section 9 of the City Tenants Proection Act in M.P.No. 2979 of 1966 for purchasing the land on which the superstructure has been put up. THE trial Court held Shanmugham is entitled to protection under the City Tenants Protection Act and has also directed the respondent therein to deposit a sum of Rs.50/- towards the Commissioners fee for ascertaining the value of the suit property. THEreafter, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the Chief 3udge, Small Causes Court, Madras. THE present petitioner was impleaded as a party-respondent on the ground that he has purchased the superstructure from Shanmugham under a registered sale deed dated 10-3-1969. THE Appellate Court, by its order dated 18-6-1969, sent back the matter to the trial Court on the ground the Door Nos. 43-C and 43-B are different properties in view of Ex. P.12. THE trial Court, after remand, found that the suit property is Door No.43-C and that the petitioner herein is not a direct tenant of the property in question. Subsequently, an ejectment order was obtained by the respondent herein and E.P.No.251 of 1983 was filed for delivery of possession of the property after the removal of the superstructure thereon. It is clear from the facts of the case that the petitioner herein is only an assignee of the right in the superstructure under the sale deed dated 10th day of March, 1969. THE executing Court, after observing that the assignee, in the absence of proof that he has become the tenant of the landlord, cannot claim the rights under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, also found that there is no evidence that the petitioner herein was paying any rent to the landlord who in turn recognished him as his tenant. Accordingly, the execution petition was allowed holding that the petitioner herein is not a tenant entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. It is as against this order, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) . Mr.R.S. Venkatachari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, submitted that the petitioner is a lawful assignee of the leasehold interest in the superstructure from its previous lessee and owner under the sale deed dated 10th day of March, 1969, and as such, he is entitled to the protection under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, since he has to be construed as a tenant under the respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the subsequent amendments referred to in respect of Section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, had not taken away the devolution of the right on the assignee except on the sub-tenants and hence, the right under Section 9 is available to the petitioner herein. It is further submitted by Mr.R.S. Venkatachari, that the respondent, by virtue of his attestation of the sale deed dated 10-3-1969, recognised the tenancy of the petitioner herein and as such, he is estopped from contending that the petitioner is not a tenant entitled to the protection of the Act. In any event, the learned counsel submitted that the predecessor-in-title having been inducted into possession in the year 1947, the amendments to Section 2(4) which came subsequently will not have any impact on the right which accrued to Shanmugham, the original tenant of the respondent herein. Mr.D.Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that subsequent to the amendment to the definition of the term Tenant under Section 2(4) of the Act in 1960, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefits under the Act and that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner is only on 10th March, 1969. According to Mr.Raju, the petitioner was never recognised as a tenant by the respondent herein and as such, he will not be entitled to agitate for the right under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act.

(3.) THUS, this decision rendered by Ramaswami, J., on all fours, applies to the present facts of the case. The mere attestation of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein by the respondent cannot be construed to mean that the respondent has accepted the petitioner herein as his tenant. It could at best be construed as an acknowledgment of his witnessing the transaction that took place between the petitioner and his vendor. It is the definite case of the respondent that he never received any rent from the petitioner herein. Unless the petitioner is able to establish that he was a tenant at some point of time at least, he cannot derive the benefit under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. The conclusion arrived at by the executing court, in my view, is correct and for all the reasosns I have stated above, I do not find any ground made out to interfere with the order passed by the executing court. In these circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.