RAJAGOPAL DOSS Vs. SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of 14 applications made by the plaintiff-respondent for the issue of commission to value the improvements effected by the defendants on their holdings. The applications were made under Section 4 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act III of 1922.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent who is the owner of re-survey No. 1065/2 had leased out portions of this land to the Adi-Dravidas for house sites. In 1929 and 1930 he filed 14 suits in ejectment, against them. Then each of them applied to the Court under Section 9 of the Act, for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell the land for a price to be fixed by the Court. In addition to the sites held by the tenants, there were on the land pathway?, a temple, common latrine, etc., erected by the Adi-Dravidas for their common use and enjoyment. The sale of these sites not being in their occupation could not be asked by the tenants. As they wanted these also sold to them, they arrived at an understanding with the plaintiff under which it was agreed that they should buy up all the sites for a certain sum. This was advantageous to the plaintiff as well. Eventually the back portion of the plot which contains 100 cocoanut trees was left out by consent and a com-mission was asked to value the rest of the land leaving out the aforesaid portion. The defendants presented a petition to the Court praying for an order directing them to pay jointly a certain sum to the plaintiff for the entire land leaving out the aforesaid portion. The Commissioner valued the land at a sum of Rs. 650 per ground. The amount payable by each of the defendants fir their sites was estimated at this rate. The so-called roads were valued at Rs. 250 per ground, and each tenant was asked to pay one-fourteenth of the total amount Thus according to this calculation, each tenant-had to pay for his share Rs. 690-7-2 in addition (o his own site value. The Court passed an order directing all the defendants in the suits to pay jointly a cert an sum to the plaintiff as the market value of the sites and a decree was passed in accordance with these terms. Payments were not made in due time and accordingly though the petitions stood dismissed under the law for non-payment, applications for extention of time were made by the defendants. Under Ex. E, dated January 20, 1932, Lime was extended till July 15, 1932, and again on the later date time was extended until September 20, 1932. As no amount was paid by the defendants, the applications out of which these appeals arise were filed by the plaintiff under Section 4 for the valuation of the improvements.

(3.) The tenants opposed the applications stating that the order passed by the Court calling on the parties to pay the value of the entire site was not an order under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, and that it is still open to them to avail themselves of that section and that they must be allowed to have their sites bought separately. The learned Judge overruled this contention saying that the order under Section 9 already passed was final; and as the tenants have failed to comply with the provisions of the decree, he held that the respondent is entitled to eject them on payment of the value of the improvements.