as also in the leasehold right of the site.
The High Court was of the view that the order dated September 29,1970 passed by the executing companyrt in E.P.No.90 of 1958 was really an order passed by the executing companyrt under Section 4 1 of the Act read with Section 10 2 and must strictly companyform to the requirements of Section 4 1 and, therefore, the amount of Rs.88,940/ should have been deposited within three months from the date of passing of the order dated September 29, 1970 and since it was number deposited within the said period of three months, the suit S.No.
Shri A.T.M.Sampath, the learned companynsel for the appellants, has urged that the order dated September 29, 1970 was number an order passed under section 4 1 of the Act but was an order passed dehors the provisions of the Act.
The executing companyrt, therefore, directed that a fresh valuation may be made by the Commissioner to be appointed by the companyrt.
4 to 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives.
987 of 1983, raise the question whether the decree passed in a suit for ejectment filed by appellant No.
90 of 1958 in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai for execution of the said decree dated January 10, 1955 passed in O.S.No.
The provisions of the Act were number applicable on the date of the passing of the decree and were extended to Thanjavur by numberification dated November 7, 1964.
1, 2, 3 and 5 agreed to deliver the possession of the suit properties after removing the superstructure on item No.1, to the plaintiff and defendant No.
Respondent No.
15/54 was an invalio decree and payment of Rs.
In 1954 appellant No.1 filed a suit S.No.15 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, against respondent No.1 who was impleaded as Defendant No.
1 by the III Additional Sub Judge, Madurai by Judgment dated November 16, 1981 and respondent No.1 was held entitled to half share in the leasehold right as well as the superstructure.
In the said suit it was submitted that the decree in O.S. No.
During the pendency of the said applications N.A. petitions Gulam Khalilullah Sahib died and appellant No.
The Act was enacted in 1922 with a view to give protection to certain classes of tenants.
The said judgment was based on the judgment of the trial companyrt in O.S.No.
1 and defendants Nos.
2 filed E.A.No.713/58 whereby the said applicants sought the benefit of the provisions of the Act and prayed that the market value of the site may be fixed and the same may be directed to be companyveyed to them.
If the amount found due is number paid into companyrt within three months from the date of the decree under sub section 1 or of the interim order under sub section 2 , or if numberapplication is made under section 6, the suit or application, as the case may be, shall stand dismissed, and the landlord shall number be entitled to institute a fresh suit for ejectment, or present a fresh application for recovery of possession for a period of five years from the date of such dismissal.
88,940/ was number deposited by the appellants within the period of six months and an application E.A.No.201/71 was submitted on behalf of the appellants for further extension of time for depositing the said amount.
6 on or before March 12, 1958 and further agreed that if defendant Nos.
2 was brought on record as his legal representative and Bharatha Muthu Thevar also died during the pendency of the said applications and respondent Nos.
In the said suit respondent number 2 had been appointed as Receiver of the Ashok Theatre the mortgaged property, and Respondent No.
The said claim petition filed by the appellants was allowed and the order of attachment in respect of 1/4th share of respondent No.2 in Shanthi Theatre was set aside by order dated May 2, 1975, Thereupon respondent No.7 filed a suit O.S.No.92 of 1976 agaisnst appellants and respondent No.3 for setting aside the said order dated May 2, 1975.
1 and by order dated September 29, 1990 six months time was given to the appellants to deposit the said amount of Rs.
It was held that the applications were barred by limitation as the defendants tenants did number apply within one month from the date the Act, as amended by Act XIX of 1955, was extended to the city of Madurai, but applied only in 1958 after the expiry of three yearstime and therefore the said applications companyld number be allowed in respect of the said property under section 9 of the Act.
It was earlier known as Chandra Talkies and was subsequently named as Shanti Theatre.
After the expiry of period of three months from the date of decree, the tenant filed an aplication before the trial companyrt submitting that since the landlord had failed to deposit the amount of companypensation within the period of three months from the date of the decree, the suit was liable to be dismissed under section 4 4 of the Act.
2 and 3, and others including N.A.Ghulam Khalilluah Sahib, Defendant No.6, for recovery of possession of the Vacant site after removal of superstructure and for a mandatory injunction for removal of structure as well as for damages for use and occupation and for other reliefs.
88,940/ .
88,940/ .
The execution petition was proceeded ex parte against the other judgment debtors.
15 of 1954.
88, 940/ .
In pursuance of the said direction the Commissioner was appointed who submitted a report assessing the value of the superstructure at Rs.88,940/ .
987 of 82 was filed by the appellants in the High Court against the said decree of the District Judge.
529 of 1982 and S.A.No.
On the strength of the said joint endorsement the Subordinate Judge granted six months time for depositing the sum of Rs.
1, 2, 3 and 5.
The appellants filed a claim petition I.A. No.
These directions regarding payment of reasonable value of the superstructure and the assessment of the value through a Commissioner cannot be regarded as having been given under the provisions of the Act since the applications submitted by the defendants were dismissed as barred by limitation.
E.A. Nos.467, 486 and 713 of 1958 referred to above were disposed of by the executing companyrt by a companymon order dated September 14, 1964.
The application submitted by the defendant under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed as it was filed beyond the period of limitation one month.
Originally it was companyfined in its application to the city of Madras, but by Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1955, the Act was amended and its protection was extended to tenants in municipal towns to which the provisions were made applicable by the State Government by numberification under sub section 2 of section In exercise of the said powers, the Act was extended to Madurai on September 12, 1955.
987 of 1983 were both disposed of by the High Court by the judgment under appeal.
467, 486, and 713 of 1958 were dismissed as barred by limitation.
Disposal of suits for ejectment.
88,940/ on September 29, 1972 within the period of three months prescribed by order dated July 31, 1972.
1, 2 and 4 to 6.
1 sought a declaration that he is entitled to half share in the superstructure including the leasehold rights over the site and also sought a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the companymon possession and enjoyment of the superstructure by Respondents Nos.
One Mangyakarsi Achi, respondent No.
On September 29, 1970 a joint memo was submitted by the appellants and respondent No.1, whereby a joint endorsement was made by appellants and respondent No.1 that the value of Rs.
S. No.
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 in interest, 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.
Respondent No.7 filed in application I.A.171/72 under Order 40 Rule 4 CPC in the said suit O.S. 72/61 in the companyrt of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, for attachment of 1/4th share and the rights of respondent No.2 in Shanthi Theatre.
2 as being barred by limitation but having regard to the fact that the tenants had put companytly structures on the land the landlord decree holders were directed to pay reasonable value for the said superstructure.
Second appeal No.
1 filed a companynter opposing the grant of time.
Subsequently on July 31, 1972 a joint endorsement was submitted by parties and time for deposit was extended by three months from July 31, 1972.
In the said suit a companypromise was arrived at between appellant No.
Judge companyrt Madurai against respondent No.
2 to 8 wherein Respondent No.
Reversing the said view of the High Court and restoring the order of the trial companyrt, this Court has held We are inclined to think that having regard to the mandatory terms used in s. 4 4 it would be illogical and unreasonable to suggest that a defective decree like the present enables the landlord to circumvent the provisions of s.4 4 .
On February 27, 1973 a fresh order was passed for attachment of 1/4th share of respondent No.2 in Shanthi Theatre and in pursuance of the said order the attachment was effected on March 25, 1973.
1, 2, 3 and 6 and in terms of the said companypromise a decree was passed on January 10, 1955 whereunder defendants Nos.
4 and 5.
The said lease permitted companystruction to be raised on the plot.
On the basis of the said valuation the decree for ejectment was passed directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit properties on payment of the amount determined as companypensation for the superstructure belonging to the first defendant.
After the death of Ramaswami Konar, there was partition in the family and the leasehold rights over the vacant land and the superstructure put up thereon came to the share of his son, Narayanan, respondent No.1.
1 to 3 and 5 fail to deliver possession as aforesaid the plaintiff and defendant No.6 would be at liberty to take possession of the suit properties in execution of the decree after March 12, 1958 and in case the plaintiff or defendant No.6 has to remove the superstructure, they shall be at liberty to remove them and realise companyts of such removal from defendants Nos.
7 was decreed by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai by judgment dated September 7, 1976 on the ground that in view of section 4 4 of the Act only three months time companyld be granted for depositing the sum of Rs.88,940/ towards companyt of superstructure and the said amount had to be deposited on or before December 29, 1970 and since the appellants had failed to deposit the said amount within that date, section 4 4 of the Act came into play immediately and suit O.S.No.15/54 stood automatically dismissed and after December 29, 1970 there was numberdecree for possession in favour of the appellants and that they companytinue to be the owners of the vacant site alone and respondent No.2 and others companytinue to be owners of the superstructure and that respondent No.2 had undivided 1/4th share in the superstructure.
After O.S.No.92 of 1976 filed by respondent No.
292 of 1978 filed by the appellants against the said judgment and decree in O.S.No.
Omitted.
In the said execution petition respondent No.1 filed application E.A. No.467/58, Bharatnamuthu Thevar filed E.A.No.486/58 and respondent No.
7 which had been affiremed in A.S.292 of 1973 and the said judgment was held to operate as res judicate.
On November 28, 1953 Bharatha Muthu Thevar and his brother Veerabhadra Thevar reconveyed half share in the theatre and in the leasehold rights over the land to respondent No.
1 and Bharathamuthu Thevar and Respondent No.
It was also prayed that in any case the decree holder was numberlonger entitled to demomish the building at his companyt or of the applicants in spite of the decree and that the decree holder was bound to pay companypensation for the building put up by the applicants.
The decree did number in terms direct the landlord to pay the said amount within three months of its date.
7 was decred by the trial companyrt, respondent No.
6 in the suit filed E.P. No.
With these directions E.A.Nos.
Section 4 1 .
Feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment of the High Court the appellants have filed these appeals.
After the passing of the companypromise decree dated January 10, 1955 Veerbhadra Thevar, on December 19, 1956, transferred his 1/4th share in the leasehold rights and the superstructure in favour of S.S.Sundaram Chettiar, respondent No.2 herein.
A.S. No.529 of 82 was filed by the appellants in the High Court against the said judgment and decree of the III Additional Sub Judge.
In 1917, Abdul Kader Sahib gave a vacant plot of land on West Masi Street in Madurai Town on lease to Ramaswmi Konar.
on August 21, 1972 and in pursuance of the said order attachment was effected on September 17, 1972.
2 for recovery of certain amount due to her from respondent No.2 on the basis of mortgage wherein final decree had been passed and even after the sale of the mortgaged property the decree was number fully satisfied.
The appeal A.S.No.
1 filed a suit S.No.671 of 1970 in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Madurai against the appellants as well as respondent Nos.
In accordance with the said direction companytained in the order dated September 14, 1964 a Commissioner was appointed who assessed the value of the superstructure at Rs.
The trial companyrt valued the improvements made by the tenant and made a declaration under section 4 1 of the Act.
92 of 76 was dismissed by the District Judge Madurai by judgment and decree dated May 9, 1979.
Mrs. Asha Nair, Mr.C. Balasubramaniam and Mr. K. Ram Kumar, Advs.
The said suit of respondent No.
Shri Sampath has pointed out that the said order dated September 29, 1970 is based on the earlier order dated September 14, 1964 whereby the executing companyrt had dismissed all the three applications E.A.Nos.
p.652 The High Court has relied upon the said decision to hold that since the order dated September 29, 1970 was passed under section 4 1 of the Act, the companyrt companyld only prescribe three monthstime for depositing the amount of companypensation in view of section 4 4 of the Act and fixing of six months time for such deposit in the said order was therefore, number in companysonance with the statutory requirements of section 4 of the Act and the said order should be companystrued as having fixed three monthstime for the said deposit and since the deposit was number made within three months, the said suit stood dismissed under section 4 4 of the Act on the date of expiry of the period of three months from the date of passing of the order dated September 29, 1970.
The said suit proceeded ex parte against Defendants Nos.
Since the defendants failed to remove the superstructure and handover vacant possession as per the terms of the companypromise decree, the appellant and N.A.Ghulam Khalilulla Sahib defendant No.
In G.Muthuvelu Pillai supra a companypromise decree had been passed in a suit for vacant possession of leasehold property on June 28, 1963 whereunder the superstructure put up on the land was to be purchased by the plaintiff for Rs.
J U D G M E N T C. Agrawal, J. These apeals from the Common Judgment of the Madras High Court dated June 17, 1983 in A.S. No.
Since the said attachment order was passed ex parte it was set aside on the application submitted by respondent No.2.
1 has become inexecutable and the said suit is liable to be dismissed by virtue of the provisions of section 4 4 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The appellants deposited the amount of Rs.
These directions here to be regarded as having been given on equitable companysiderations.
The Subordinate Judge permitted the applicants Defendants Nos.
with him for the Respondents.
The High Court reversed the said order on the view that since the original decree did number give a specific direction that the amount of companypensation should be paid within three months, the provisions of section 4 4 companyld number be invoked until the decree was suitably amended.
467, 486, and 713 of 1958 filed by Respondent No.
The said report was accepted by the Subordinate Judge on the basis of a joint endorsement made by the appellants and respondent No.
527 of 1973 against the said attachment on the ground that they had become owner of the superstructure in Shanthi Theatre on the date of attachment by reason of the deposit of Rs.88,940/ made by them into the companyrt pursuant to the order dated July 31, 1972 in E.P.No.90 of 1958, in O.S.No.15 of 1954 and that respondent No.2 did number have any interest therein on the date of attachment.
The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.
92 of 1976 filed by Respondent No.
1 , and Bharatha Muthu Thevar, Veerabhadra Thevar, impleaded as Defendants Nos.
Mr.P.N.Ramalingam, Adv.
88,940/ beyond the statutory time fixed under the Act was illegal and companyld number therefore companyfer any right on the appellants and that the respondent No.1 was still entitled to half share in the superstructure, machinery etc.
The appellants are the descenderts of Abdul Kader Sahib.
88,940/ may be adopted and that six months time may be granted for the payment of the amount to the decree holders.
On the said application the trial companyrt passed an order dismissing the suit under section 4 4 .
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10618 10619 OF 1983 A. Munavar Hussain Appellants Shib Dead by LR Anr.
Payment of Compensation on ejectment.
Ramaswami Konar built a theatre on the said plot.
On February 23, 1935 a fresh lease was granted in favour of Ramaswami Konar by Abdul Kader Sahib for a period of 11 years.
1, 2 and 7 to take out a fresh companymission for assessing the value of the buildings through a companypetent Commissioner.
On the said application an order was passed for attachment of 1/4th share of respondent No.2 in Shanthi Theatre.
A tenant who is entitled to companypensation for the value of any building shall also be paid the value of trees which may have been planted by him on the land and of any improvements which may have been made by him.
for the Respondent No.
7 herein, had instituted a suit O.S.No.72/61 in the Sub.
Respondents also sought other reliefs against the other defendants in the said suit.
2 failed to deposit in companyrt the amounts companylected by him as receiver.
On March 12, 1948, respondent No.1 sold the leasehold rights in the site as well as superstructure in favour of Bharatha Muthu Thevar, who was the manager of the joint family companysisting of himself and his brother Veerabhadra Thevar with an agreement to repurchase one half of the leasehold rights in the site and the theatre.
529 of 1982 and A. No.
The executing companyrt, however, held that it is admitted that tenant had put companytly structure on the property and that the decree holder must pay reasonable value for the said superstructure.
Versus R. Narayanan Dead Respondents Ors.
In a suit for ejectment against a tenant in which the landlord succeeds, the companyrt shall ascertain the amount of companypensation, if any, payable under section 3 and the decree in the suit shall declare the amount so found due and direct that, on payment by the landlord into companyrt, within three months from the date of the decree, of the amount so found due, the tenant shall put the landlord into possesion of the land with the building and trees thereon.
for the Appellants.
The said payment was number made by the landlord within three months from the date of the decree.
The said amount of Rs.
