This litigation was carried upto the High Court in Second Appeal.
In the said application under Section 9 of the said Act the respondent claimed that the appellant should be directed to sell out of the said property, the land adjoining the said building and necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the building on such terms and companyditions as might be fixed by the Court.
The respondent had number surren dered the possession of the property despite the deposit of amount of companypensation by the appellant and the appellant had been companypelled to resort to the companyrt.
The said suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif.
The execution proceedings were stopped.
The terms of the lease are number relevant for the purposes of resolving the companytroversy raised before us.
The High Court held that in these circumstances, the respondent was entitled to make an appli cation under Section 9 of the said Act during the pendency of the execution proceedings.
1317 of From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.1983 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.
It further took the view that the deposit of the amount of companyts of the superstructure by the appellant did number affect the right of the respondent.
The respondent preferred an appeal to the SubCourt at Nagercoil which was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge.
The High Court took the view that the decree in favour of the appellant was simple decree of ejectment and did number take away the right of the respondent to the building or superstructure.
During the Pendency of the second appeal an applica tion was filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Tenants Protection Act, 1921, as amended by Act XIX of 1955 and Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the said Act .
This application was resisted by the appellant.
In 1944 the trust had leased out the said property in favour of the respondent for six years.
The respondent himself obtained a lease of the land subsequently.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The first was that the respondent was number entitled to exercise his right to purchase the land immediately adjoining the super structure as might be required for the beneficial enjoyment of the said structure as the said structure had number been put up by him.
As the respond ent failed to pay the rent to the Trust, the Trust fried a suit for ejectment against the respondent which suit was later transferred to the District Munsifs Court, Nagercoil.
The High Court also dismissed the review petition preferred by the appellant.
S. Krishnamurthy lyer, P.N. Ramalingam and A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellant.
Swami Mudaliar secured a further assignment of the said lease from the said Ramaswamy Mudaliar.
Balakrishnan, S. Prasad, R. Raghavan and Vijay Kumar for the Respondent.
4,475.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
The decree for eviction was passed by the learned District Munsif on companydition that the appellant will pay to the respondent the companyts of the building or the superstructure.
The decree of the trial Court for eviction was upheld by the High Court.
The provisions of the said Act were extended to Nagercoil town in respect of number residential buildings by a government order which was published in the Gazette on June 29, 1975.
Swami Mudaliar put up a building on the said land and the respond ent herein purchased the building from him in 1943 for a sum of Rs.
2792 of 1979 filed in that Court.
2797 OF 1979.
The said lands were leased by the appellant to one Padakalingam in 1930 who in turn assigned the lease in favour of one Ramaswamy Mudal iar in 1931.
