A V VISWANATHA SASTRI Vs. ARMURUGAPPA CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises in the City Civil Court for a decree for the ejectment of the respondents from premises situate in Mottai Gardens, Washermanpet, Madras. The respondents claimed that they were tenants within the meaning of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 and that the suit could not be maintained as the notice required by Section 11 of the Act had not been given. The City Civil Court Judge held that the Act did not apply and decreed the suit. On appeal to this Court Pandrang Row, J., held that the Act did apply and that the plea raised by the respondents was a valid one. Accordingly he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with costs. The appellants have preferred the present appeal from the decision of Pandrang Row, J.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions of the respective parties it is necessary to refer in some detail to the facts. The third appellant is a lessee from the first and second appellants of certain properties, which include the properties in suit. The first and second appellants are the receivers appointed in a partition suit and by an order of this Court passed in 1925 took possession of all the properties from one Kasim Sahib, to whom they had been leased. The properties comprised a market and houses, shops and vacant land in the vicinity of the market. According to the lease deed, there are four blocks of property. The market comprises one block, a house and shops in Venkata-krishnan Street another block, a house and shops in the Tiruvottiyur High Road a third block, and shops and vacant land in Mottai Gardens a fourth block. The four blocks have been referred to in these proceedings and in the partition suit as the market. Kasim Sahib went into possession of the properties on the 5 January, 1916, under a registered deed, which gave him a lease of the premises for five years. Although the contract allowed him to sublet the houses, shops and the stalls in the market, it prohibited him from creating any other subtenancies. He was also prohibited from converting the existing buildings and from erecting fresh ones. This lease was renewed for a period of three years on the 5 January, 1921, on similar terms. A further lease for three years was granted on the 27 April, 1924, also on the same terms. The partition suit was filed in 1924, and it involved all the properties leased to Kasim Sahib. When the receivers were appointed they ejected Kasim Sahib for breaches of the conditions of his tenancy, and leased all the properties to three persons of whom the third appellant was one. This lease continued for three and a half years. On the 27 August, 1929, the properties were leased for three years to the third defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises. On the 1 November, 1931, the properties were leased to the third appellant, who is still the lessee.

(3.) In 1917 Kasim Sahib sublet a part of the vacant land in Mottai Gardens to the respondents and they erected thereon a shed for the purposes of storing firewood. They were dealers in firewood. Kasim Sahib had no power to allow the respondent to erect this building, but he did not interfere and he accepted rent from them in respect of it. When the receivers took possession of the property in 1925 no objection was taken to the action of the respondents in erecting this building and they granted a new lease knowing that the lessees would be accepting rent from the respondents in respect of the building. The respondents commenced their occupation in 1927 as the daily tenants of the lessee and throughout have continued in occupation on this basis. On each occasion when a fresh lease was granted the respondents accepted the lessee as their landlord and paid to him the daily rent. The present suit was filed by the appellants in 1934. The question which the Court is called upon to decide is whether the present tenancy of the respondents must be deemed to have commenced before the 21 February, 1922, when the Madras City Tenants Protection Act came into force. If they are to be deemed to be holding under a tenancy created after the Act came into force it is conceded that they will not be entitled to the benefit of the Act, as Section 1(3) provides that the Act shall apply only to tenancies of land created before the commencement of the Act. Section 2(2) states that land does not include buildings, and much has been said as to whether the respondents tenancy was a tenancy of the land or of the building. It may be taken that the tenancy which was originally created was a tenancy of the land because the plot of which they got possession and in respect of which they paid rent had no-superstructure on it at the outset.