NAGAMMAL Vs. C.R. GOVINDARAJULU NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in M.P. Nos. 2082 to 2084 of 1956 in Ejectment Suit No. 235 of 1953 on his file. The suit was instituted by the landlord against the tenant of a parcel of land in Komaleeswaranpet. An order for ejectment was passed in the suit on 9th. September, 1953. The tenant was given two months' time for surrendering vacant possession. The tenant then instituted O.S. No. 1948 of 1953 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for a declaration that the landlord was not entitled to an order for eviction. That suit was instituted under Section 47 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The suit was dismissed on 27th January, 1955. The appeal preferred by the tenant against the decree dismissing the suit was transferred by this Court to the City Civil Court and has been dismissed by the City Civil Court on 26th April, 1957.

(2.) WHEN the landlord obtained the decree for eviction against the tenant, the tenant was not entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. The Act was amended in 1955 so as to have its benefits extended to tenants in the position of the tenant with whom we are concerned in these petitions. In September, 1956, the tenant filed three petitions under the amended City Tenants Protection Act, in Ejectment Suit No. 235 of 1953. In M.P. No. 2082 of 1956, the tenant prayed for an order directing the landlord to sell the land to the tenant for a price to be fixed by the Court. In M.P. No. 2084 of 1956, the tenant prayed that an order be passed against the landlord directing him to pay compensation for the superstructure which the tenant had built on the land. In M P. No. 2083 of 1956, the tenant prayed that fair rent be fixed under Section 7 -A of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. In M.P. No. 2082 of 1956, the Judge of the Small Causes Court was of the opinion that the tenant was not entitled to an order that the landlord be directed to sell the land and dismissed that application. In M.P. No. 2084 of 1956, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the tenant was not entitled to an order for compensation and on that finding dismissed that petition. In M.P. No. 2083 of 1956, the learned Judge took the view that the tenant was entitled to an order fixing fair rent. The tenant has filed, C.R. P. Nos. 1080 and 1079 of 1957 against the orders passed in M.P. Nos. 2082 and 2084 of 1956 and the landlord has filed C.R.P. No. 525 of 1957 against the order passed by the learned Judge in M.P. No. 2083 of 1956 on his file.

(3.) THE next application we have to deal with is the application made by the tenant for compensation for the superstructure which he had constructed on the land. In the ejectment proceedings, the tenant had pleaded that he was entitled to compensation. That claim was gone into and the judge gave a finding that the tenant was not entitled to compensation. But the law which was applied to that .claim was the general law of contracts and tenancy and not the general law as modified by Sections 3,4, 10 and 12of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. The claim made by the tenant subsequent to the Amending Act of 1955 had to be decided with reference to these sections. The learned Small Cause Judge was wrong in his view that the tenant's claim was barred by res judicata by reason of the order that had been made in Ejectment Suit No. 235 of 1953. C.R.P. No. 1079 of 1957 is allowed and the order in M.P. No. 2084 of 1956 is set aside. The learned Judge will restore the petition to its original number on his file and will dispose of it afresh with reference to the rights if any, allowable under Sections 3,4, 10and 12 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. The parties will be free to adduce evidence in relation to their respective contentions of that claim of the tenant. Costs in this revision petition will abide and be provided for in the order to be passed by the Judge of the Small Causes Court.