PONNUSWAMI Vs. SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal turns on the following question of law: 'in view of the Amendment Act 2 of 1980 and its applicability to tenancies created before 3. 3. 1980, would not the appellant be entitled to the advantage conferred by the Act"' THE case of the appellant is that the suit property is within the limits of the municipal town of Nagapattinam, that as per the Madras city Tenants Protection Amendment Act 19 of 1955, the Act could be extended to any municipal town with effect from such date as has been specified in the notification, that a notification was issued as per G. O. Ms. No. 4243 extending the Act to the Nagapattinam municipal town with effect from 20. 11. 1956, that the Madras City Tenants Protection Amendment Act, 1979 applies also to any municipal town from such date as may be specified in the notification, that there was no subsequent notification cancelling the earlier notification, that the Act continues to apply without interruption to the Nagapattinam municipal town and that therefore he would be entitled to the benefit of the Act, which applies to all the tenancies created before 3. 3. 1980. In support of his contention the appellant would place before me a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A. C. JACOB v. VENKATARAMA GOUNDER, L. P. A. Nos. 37 and 38 of 1977, dt. 28. 6. 1982, in which the benefit of the Amendment Act of 1979 has been conferred upon the tenant in the municipal town of Coimbatore , to which the Amendment Act, 1955 was extended on 13-3-1958, without any further notification after the Amendment act 1979.

(2.) THE stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent is that in pursuance of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1955, a notification was issued by the Government on 20. 11. 1956 extending the act to the Municipal town of Nagapattinam, that the Amendment Act, 1979 provides that the State Government may by notification extend the Act with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification to any municipal town, that no such notification has been issued under the Amendment Act, 1979, that in the absence of such notification the Act would not apply to the municipal town of Nagapattinam and that the appellant cannot claim the benefit of the Act on the ground that the tenancy was created before 3. 3. 1980.

(3.) AS far as the petition under Sec. 9 is concerned, it is clear from that section that it is unnecessary for the tenant to give the details of valuation in the petition itself and this point is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is also well-settled that even if the suit for ejectment is defective in any manner, once the suit for ejectment has been filed by the landlord, the right of the tenant to file an application under Sec. 9 remains unaffected. This point of law is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent and it is therefore unnecessary to, mention the authorities on this point. The trial Court is therefore directed to take up the petition under