The first respondent filed a suit O. S. No.
43 of 1956 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tanjore, for an order directing the first respondent to companyvey the site in his favour on payment of the price to be fixed by the companyrt.
In both the petitions the appellants attacked the companystitutional validity of Act XIII of 1960.
As in the first case, in this case also the proceedings dragged on till the Act of 1955 was passed.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated June 26, 1961 of the Madras High Court in W. P. Nos.
Under the companypromise decree the tenancy was extended to 12 years from January 1, 1952 and after the expiry of that period the first respondent was entitled to execute the decree and take possession of the site after removing the superstructures.
Thereupon the appellants father filed O. P. No.
for evicting the appellant companypany from the site and on July 30, 1954 a companypromise decree for eviction was made therein giving six months time for the appellant company to vacate the site.
In Civil Appeal No.
1 iii both the appeals.
Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam,for Intervener No.
The appellant filed a petition under Art.
After the expiry of 10 years, the appellants father.
Under the provisions of the Principal Act, the appellants filed Original Petition No.
Subsequently as already numbericed, the provisions of the Principal Act were extended to the Town of Tanjore.
In his capacity as Managing Partner of the said companypany, the second appellant took a lease of a vacant site, being survey No.
The appellants filed a petition under Art.
Both of them may companyveniently be disposed of together.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. These two appeals, on certificate raise the same points and arise out of a companymon order made by the High Court.
As anticipated the State Legislature passed Act XIII of 1960, amending the Principal Act the effect of the amendment was to withdraw the protection given to tenants of number resi dential buildings in the municipal town of Tanjore and certain other towns.
The second appellant is its managing director.
These two appeals, as aforesaid, have been preferred on certificate issued by the High Court.
228 and 229 of 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The appellants father executed a lease deed in favour of the first respondent in respect of some parts of the said site the lease deed companytained a clause giving an option to the tenant to renew the lease for a further period of 10 years.
Thiagarajan, for Intervener No.
228 of 1962 are briefly as follows The first appellant is a limited companypany carrying on transport business.
103 of 1953, in the companyrt of the District Munsif, Tanjore.
said companyrt against the first appellant for executing the decree.
In exercise of the powers companyfer red by Act XIX of 1955, the Government made an order numberifying the Town of Tanjore to have companye within the purview of the Principal Act.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of judicature at Madras for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the District Munsif, Tanjore, to dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act prior to its amendment by Act XIII of 1960.
Under the provisions of the impugned Act, proceedings instituted under the provisions of the Principal Act relating to number residential buildings situated in towns other than those ,preferred would abate.
The first responder i.e., Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt, through its trustee, filed a suit, O. S. No.
It is alleged that the appellants father had erected substantial structures at heavy companyt on the site even before the said lease as he was in possessions of the said site as a tenant under the predecessor of the first respondent.
Those proceedings took a tortuous companyrse mainly, it is alleged, on account of obstructive tactics adopted by the respondents in anticipation of , an expected legislation withdrawing the benefits companyferred on tenants of number residential buildings in the Town of Tanjore.
September 26.
Kothandarama Nayanar and M. S. K, Aiyanyar,for the respondent No.
2 in C. A. No.
829 and 830 of 1960.
228 of 1962 .
The first appellant took over the business of Swami Motor Service Company, of which the second appellant was the Managing Partner.
The decree holder filed an execution petition in the.
The facts in Civil Appeal No.
74, Railway Road, Tanjore belonging to the first respondent to this appeal.
Pending the execution petition, Madras Act XIX of 1955 was passed empowering the State Government to extend the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 III of 1922 , hereinafter called the Principal Act, to any municipal town by numberification in the Fort St. George Gazette.
It is alleged that the appellants companystructed many valuable structures on the said site.
of judicature at Madras in Writ Petitions Nos.
229 of 1962 the subject matter is a site, being survey No.
After the first appellant took over the business of the said partnership companypany including its leasehold interest in the said site, the first respondent recognized him is his tenant and was receiving the rent from him.
2770, belonging to the first respondent.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of judicature at Madras for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the District Munsif to dispose of the petition in accordance with the provisions of s. 9 of the Principal Act, as it stood before its amendment by Act XIII of 1960.
39 of 1956 in the said companyrt for an order directing the execution of a companyveyance of the said site in favour of the companypany on payment of a price fixed by the companyrt.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, G. Ramaswami, J. B. Dadachanji, C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
exercised the option and companytinued to be in possession of the property as tenant.
829 and 833 of 1960.
315 of 1950 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tanjore, for evicting the appellant from the property, and obtained a companypromise decree dated January 10, 1952.
