PARTHASARATHI AIYANGAR Vs. DORAISAWMI NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to us is: Whether a tenant in occupation of trust lands belonging to a temple or mosque can enforce a compulsory sale under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and require the temple or mosque to deliver the land to him on a valuation to be made by the Court.

(2.) There is no difficulty to my mind in including the trustees of temples, mosques and other religious endowments, within the definition of "landlord" in Section 2 of Madras Act III of 1922, as they certainly are persons entitled to collect the rent of the land on behalf of another person. A greater difficulty arises when we come to consider Section 9. This section provides for the compulsory sale by a landlord of land in the possession of a tenant in the City of Madras from which the tenant is sought to be ejected in a suit instituted under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The explanation to this section defines "land" as: The interest of the landlord in the land and all other interests which he can convey under any power.

(3.) What are the interests which he can convey under any power? If they signify easements and other subsidiary interests, it would have been easy for the Act to so describe them. If the title to the land is intended to be included, has a trustee power to convey it? In Palaniappa Chetty V/s. Sreemath Devasikamony Pandara Sannadhi (1917) I.L.R., 40 Mad., 709 (P.C.) at 715 the Judicial Committee quoting the words of Lord Justice Knight Bruce in Hanoomanpersaud Panday V/s. Mussumat Babooee Munraj Koonweree (1856) 6 M.I.A., 393 observe: The power of the manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his own is under the Hindu Law a limited and qualified power. It can only be exercised rightly in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate.