BALAKRISHNA TAWKER AND ANR. Vs. SHANMUGHAVALLI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN petition filed by the tenants who secured the benefits under the City Tenants' Protection Act for a direction to the landlords to convey the land to them as per the directions of the principal Court which went into the matter regarding the entitlement of the tenants, the question which arose was whether the tenants -respondents were entitled to such a conveyance from the landlords without the tenants paying the interest on the amount payable by them on the amount fixed by the principal Court. The Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Madras before whom such matters as provided for under Section 9(3) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 come up, was of the view that the landlords are bound to execute the conveyance inasmuch as the tenants have complied with the directions issued by the principal Court when it disposed of the petitions under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act.

(2.) IN this case, the principal Court, in the sense, the Court which principally dealt with the relative entitlements of both the landlords and the tenants fixed the price, granted time for payment and thereafter directed that the amounts payable by the tenants were to carry interest at 6 per cent, per annum. Not being satisfied with the quantum fixed as also the period during which the quantified amounts were to be paid by the tenants and also the direction in regard to interest, the tenants and the landlords went an in appeal to the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras The appellate Court modified the price and fixed by itself another period for payment of the quantified amount in instalments but remained silent regarding the grant of interest. It is conceded before me that the tenants took up the matter further to this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1317, 1326 and 1327 of 1971, but the tenants were unsuccessful. The point, however, is that the landlords were satisfied with the order of the Appellate Judge who quantified the just compensation and also indicated the number of monthly instalments during which the tenants had to pay such quantified compensation. Notwithstanding the fact that the Appellate Court did not express itself on the question whether interest was payable at all on such quantified compensation the landlords did not take up the matter further to this Court and the order of the appellate Judge dated 10th August. 1970, become final. After this, petitions were filed by the tenants for a direction to the landlords to convey the extent of the land for which the price was fixed and to put them in possession. It is not in dispute that the other formalities as contemplated under Section 9(3)(a) of the Act were complied with by the tenants. When the petitions for directions were filed by the tenants under Section 9(3)(a) of the Act, an objection was taken by the landlords that they were not obliged to execute the conveyance unless the interest on the qualified compensation was also paid. The contention was that the appellate Court when it passed the order on 10th August, 1970, omitted to grant interest though the principal Court granted the same and such an omission was more or less accidental and could never be said to be intentional. Both the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, and the appellate Court, namely, the Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes, did not agree with this contention. Hence the revision petitions.

(3.) THE civil revision petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed. No costs.