RADHA BAI Vs. BHASYAKARA ADHI CHENNAKESAVA PERUMAL TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the defendants in OS.No.8576 of 1978. The suit was filed by the respondent, temple seeking ejectment. Pending suit the original tenant Kuppusamy Reddy died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 5, 6 and 7. The defendants 2, 3 and 4 are said to be sub-tenants. It is now stated that they have vacated the premise and the appeal has been dismissed as against them. Both the Courts below held that the defendants/ appellants are not entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, in view of the amendment introduced by the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994.

(2.) The following questions of law have been framed for determination in this Second Appeal:

(3.) Even during his life time, the said Kuppusamy Reddy filed an application in IA.No.4026 of 1979 under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 seeking direction to the landlord viz., the temple to sell the property to him, inasmuch as the building belonged to him. The said application was allowed by the trial Court on 20.12.1983 directing the tenant to pay Rs. 48,000/- per ground. It is also on record that the Temple challenged the said order in IA.No.4026 of 1999 dated 20.12.1983 by filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA.No.337 of 1985 and the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be disposed of on 08.04.1986 increasing the cost of the land to Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 48,000/-. The other directions made in the order dated 20.12.1983 were upheld.