M ETHIRAJULU NAIDU Vs. ARANGANATHAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the owner of a plot of land in Thatha Muthiappan Street, George Town, Madras. On the 18 October, 1912 the appellant leased this land to the respondents for a period often years. The respondents acquired the lease for the purpose of building thereon a hall which was intended to be used for dramatic performances. At the time the lease was entered into there was a building on the land, but this the respondents demolished and erected in its stead a new building, which was used for dramatic performances and for cinematograph entertainments. On the expiration of this lease the appellant granted to the respondents a new lease for another period of ten years from the 1 of October, 1922. Clause 4 of the second lease reads as follows: The lessee shall always and in any event be entitled to be paid the price of the superstructure built on the said plot of land before he surrenders possession of the land either on the expiry of the lease hereby granted or any other future lease or at any time. The price shall be fixed according to the market value of the buildings as at the time of ascertainment and payment.

(2.) Therefore, when the respondents right to occupy the land expired, the appellant was to be entitled to the building on it, provided he paid to the respondents the market value. This had to be paid before the respondents surrendered possession. This factor has an important bearing on one of the questions raised in this appeal.

(3.) The second lease was not renewed and the appellant became entitled to the possession of the property on payment to the respondents of the value of the building which now stands upon the land. He tendered to the respondents the sum of Rs. 3,000 as representing its market value. This was not accepted and on the 25 January, 1933, the appellant filed on the Original Side of this Court the suit out of which this appeal arises. He prayed for a decree for possession, for payment to him of Rs. 2,900 (the amount which he claimed to be due as mesne profits up to the date of the filing of the suit); and for payment of future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 725 per mensem. The respondents contested the appellant's right to possession of the land. They contended that by virtue of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act of 1921, which came into force on the 21 of February, 1922, they were entitled to a conveyance of the land on payment to the appellant of a sum representing the value of the building. The respondents also contended that the appellant could not in any event obtain a decree for possession until he had paid Rs. 100,000, which the respondents alleged was the true value of the building. The suit was tried by Wadsworth, J., who held that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act did not apply and that the appellant was entitled to a decree for possession. Having decided this question, the learned Judge directed the Official Referee to hold an inquiry into the value of the superstructure, A preliminary decree was passed in accordance with this judgment and an appeal was then filed. The appellate Court concurred in the opinion expressed by Wadsworth, J., that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act did not apply. The respondents then appealed to the Privy Council, but there also failed. The judgment of the Judicial Committee was delivered on the 10 October, 1939.