A R RAMANATHA IYER Vs. KONDIAH NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition Is filed against the order dated 5-3-1976 in M. P. No - 224O of 1975 by IV Judge, Court of Causes, Madras. The petitioner, respondent in the lower court, is the land owner, the respondent, who is the petitioner before the lower court, is the tenant The Petitioner filed under, Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, ejectment suit No. 111 of 1968, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The respondent filed M. P. NO. 3165 of 1968, under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, claiming protection under the said Act and offering to purchase the land in his occupation at a price to be fixed 'by the court. The court fixed the value of the land in occupation of the respondent at As. 1380, and directed him to pay the amount in thirty monthly instalments commencing from February 1972. The respondent paid the entire sum of Rupees 2731. In the meanwhile, the entire area of which the suit land forms part has been declared to be slum area under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) AA 1971, (hereinafter to be referred to as (Act 11 of 1971). The petitioner was also served with a notice under Section 11 of the said Act, Thereafter the respondent filed an application for withdrawal of his application filed under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, and also sought permission of the court to withdraw the sum of Rs. 2731 deposited by him to the credit of the ejectment suit. On this application the court held that the notification under Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1971 puts an end to the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant and it is neither possible nor competent for the petitioner to sell the land to the respondent and so long as the sale deed has not been executed by the petitioner and the title has not passed to the respondent it is not open to the Petitioner to lay any claim to the amount in Court deposit. On these finding the Court below ordered refund of the amount to the respondent. Aggrieved against the order passed by the lower court the petitioner has coma up in revision before this court.

(2.) It is contended for the petitioner that since the lands have not been acquired by the Government under Section 11 of Act 11 of 1911, the petitioner's right, title and interest in the property are merely restricted and regulated under Section 14 of the said Act and the relationship of the landlord and tenant does not cease to exist by virtue of the notification issued under Section 11. It is further contended that since the object of the Act, as seen from the pre amble, is merely to provide for the improvement and clearance of slums in the State of Tamil Nadu and not to deprive the petitioner of his right, title and interest in the area declared to be a slum clearance area under Section 11, there is absolutely no, for holding that the petitioner is not competent to convey the land in favour of the respondent and ordering refund of the amount to the respondent. It is also contended that the respondent having offered to purchase the property and deposited the amount in pursuance of the court order, it is not open to him to withdraw the application and claim refund of the amount.

(3.) It is contended for the respondent that so long as the court has not order ed conveyance of the land by the petitioner to the respondent and the respondent has not been put in possession of the land, it is not open to the respondent to withdraw the application filed under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, and claim refund of the amount,