35 per month.
A Division Bench of the High Court took a companytrary view in a Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the lessor.
It was, as the long title shows, intended to give protection to certain classes of tenants in Municipal towns and adjoining areas in the State of Madras.
The last eleven words were substituted for the words in the City of Madras by an amending Act of 1955.
Me present appeal is from the judgment dated September 21, 1962 of the Division Bench in an appeal filed under cl.
There was, however, a remit for disposal on other points.
By a written but number registered lease deed the appellants I and 2 took on lease for a year from February 10, 1953, a vacant site on a rent of Rs.
An appeal by the respondent landlord before the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and a second appeal in the High Court failed.
The lease deed companytained a term that numberbuilding should be built on the land.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 21, 1962 of the Madras High Court in L.P.A. No.
The respondent landlord sued in ejectment in 1956 and the suit stood closed for arguments on February 25, 1958.
The case was reopened and some more evidence was received.
The District Munsif, Coimbatore by his judgment dated April 8, 1958 accepted the claim of appellants 1 and 2 and took action to determine the price for the land as required by the Act.
By that judgment the decision of the Single Judge was reversed and the application under s. 9 of the Act was ordered to be dismissed.
On that date appellants I and 2 applied under S. 9 of the above Act claiming the right to purchase the land.
Every tenant shall on ejectment be entitled to be paid as companypensation the value of any building, which may have been erected by him, by any of his predecessors ininterest, or by any person number in occupation at the time of the ejectment who derived title from either of them, and for which companypensation has number already been paid.
Nothing in any companytract made by a tenant shall take away or limit his rights under this Act, provided that numberhing herein companytained shall affect any stipulations made by the tenant in writing registered as to the erection of buildings in so far as they relate to builddings erected after the date of the companytract.
Ram Reddy and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellants.
The lease provided that the tenants shall number raise any building whatsoever in the vacant site but they companymitted a branch of the companyenant by putting up a building on the land.
15 of the Letters Patent and by certificate from the Division Bench.
Without the knowledge and companysent of the landlord the appellants I and 2 built structures on the vacant site and companytinued to hold over even after the expiry of the year.
They inducted sub tenants.
The tenants held over after the expiry of the term reserved and the tenancy was companytinued.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Appellants 1 and 2, who were tenants of the respondent landlord, seek the enforcement of s. 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, which was extended to Coimbatore on February 19, 1958.
The appellants I and 2 were thus tenants of land excluding the buildings.
The tenants have appealed to this Court against the judgment of the Division Bench.
B. Agarwala and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondents.
The Judgment of Sarkar, Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ.
Sarkar J. By an unregistered instrument of lease dated February 3, 1953, the respondent let out a piece of vacant land in the town of Coimbatore to the appellants for the term of one year at a rent of Rs.
was delivered by Sarkar J. Hidayatullah J. delivered a separate Opinion.
Pending the suit, the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, was on February 19, 1958 made applicable to the town of Coimbatore and thereupon the tenants made an application in the suit under S. 9 of the Act for an order directing the lessor to sell the land to them.
146 of 1965.
29 of 1961.
30/ per month.
On December 4, 1956, the lessor filed a suit for ejectment of the tenants and their sub tenants.
The trial Court, a learned Sub Judge in first appeal and Anantanarayanan J. in second appeal to the High Court of Madras held that the tenants were entitled to the order.
