C N SIVASANKARAN NAIR Vs. V RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.271 of 1978, District Munsif"s Court, Coim-batore, is the appellant in the second appeal and the petitioner in the civil revision petition. The circumstances giving rise to the second appeal as well as the civil revision petition before this Court are as follows: A site of 10 feet by 10 feet at the north-eastern corner of the property belonging to the respondent in T.S.584 was leased out to the appellant in the second appeal and the petitioner in the civil revision petition (tenant, for short), the tenancy having commenced on the 1st of the calendar month on a monthly rent of Rs.30 payable on the 5th of the succeeding month. A wooden bunk was placed by the tenant on the site leased out in his favour and he had been carrying on petty shop business therein. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord") desired to put up a compound wall enclosing the entire area including the site under the occupation of the tenant and issued a notice to the tenant terminating the tenancy and calling upon him to vacate the site and put the landlord in possession. In the reply sent, the tenant, while declining to surrender, claimed that he is entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants" Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Thereupon, the landlord instituted O.S.No.271 of 1978, District Munsif"s Court, Coimbatore, in ejectment and prayed for a decree for possession against the tenant and also for recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that the tenant is not entitled to any of the benefits under the Act, as no building had been erected by him on the site and there was neither a superstructure nor a structure, which had originated from and embedded in the land and that the mere placing of a wooden bunk on the site least, out in favour of the tenant would not clothe him with rights under the Act.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the tenant, while accepting the tenancy, he contended that on the site measuring 10 feet north south and 20 feet east west, leased out in his favour on payment of a rent of Rs.18 per mensem, a superstructure had been put up him at his cost and that remained in his possession and enjoyment. The claim of the landlord that a built-up wooden bunk had been placed on the site leased out, that no building had been put up by the tenant on the site and that nothing has come out of the soil of the site either as a superstructure or even as a structure, was denied. Alleging that he is entitled to claim the benefits under the Act, the tenant expressed his willingness to purchase the site measuring 10 feet by 20 feet from the landlord. An objection was also raised that the notice to quit issued by the landlord was invalid. Besides, the tenant expressed his readiness to pay the arrears of rent claimed by the landlord.

(3.) Consistent with the stand taken in the written statement by the tenant, he filed I.A.No.896 of 1978 in O.S.No. 271 of 1978 under section 9(1) of the Act praying that the landlord should be directed to sell the site to him for a price to be fixed by the court. In support of that application the tenant claimed to have put up a superstructure on the site leased out at his cost and thus become entitled to file the application for sale to him at a price to be fixed by the court of the site 10 feet by 20 feet, which according to him, was the minimum extent necessary for his convenient enjoyment. In his counter, the landlord not only disputed the extent of the site leased out, but also contended that the mere placing of a ready-made wooden bunk over the site let out would not enable the tenant to claim the benefits of the Act, as the tenant was not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Act. There was, according to the landlord, no superstructure on the site put up by the tenant in respect of which he was entitled to compensation to justify the claim of the tenant under section 9(1) of the Act.