1835 of 1958 praying for directions under s. 9 for the sale of the site.
The respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In March, 1964, the respondent served numberice upon the appellant calling upon it to vacate the property and surrender vacant possession of the site.
In Gnanaprakasam and Another v. Mahboob Bi and others, a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court held that even where the original companyrt had made an order fixing the price of the land and directing its payment by the tenant, the application filed by the tenant companyld number be regarded as at an end so long as final orders directing execution of companyveyance and delivery of possession were number passed.
As the scheme under the original section stood superseded by the scheme enacted under the amended sections the order of July 28,1958 stood aborted and pursuant to the amended section fresh proceedings had to be taken by the companyrt in order to dispose of the suit.
The appellant attorned to the respondent and was accepted as a tenant.
The application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that s. 9 was void.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 30th March, 1971 of the Madras High Court in R.P. No.
1883 of 1968 in the High Court, and on March 30, 1971 the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition.
The first is that the amended s. 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act cannot be invoked in the present case, and that s. 9, as it stood before the amendment, is the provision which governs the rights of the parties.
In this petition all the parties will bear their own companyts.
The petition was remitted by the learned Judge to the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore for appointing a Commissioner to fix the market value of the site.
The suit companytinued pending on the date when the amendments took effect.
Thereafter, the appellant filed Civil Revision Petition No.
The lower Court will appoint a suitable experienced companymissioner to fix the value of the site based on the market value prevalent this day 28th July 1958 .
7241 of 1960 was number companypetent in the High Court as the order dated July 28, 1958 by Panchapakesa Iyer J. had been companyfirmed by the Supreme Court, in appeal.
During the pendency of the appeals the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 was extended to the town of Coimbatore with effect from February 19, 1958.
By its judgment dated March 4, 1964, reported as N. Vajrapani Naidu and Another v. The New Theatre Carnatic Talkies Ltd., Coimbatore the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of Panchapakesa Iyer J. and dismissed the appeal.
7242 of 1960 praying for stay of the enquiry directed by that order.
On April 1, 1964, upon the dismissal of the respondents appeal in this Court, the High Court dismissed the appeals against the decrees passed by Panchapakesa Iyer J. as withdrawn.
Shortly thereafter, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to extend the lease.
Now during the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, s. 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated July 27, 1960 Act was amended by Madras Act No.
The order did number dispose of the application and the suit, for under the original s. 3 the statute companytemplated an order by the companyrt, after it was satisfied that the tenant had paid the price determined by it, directing the companyveyance of the land by the landlord to the tenant.
The appellant refused to do so, and set up an oral agreement entitling it to an extension of the lease for a further period of twenty years.
7241 of 1960 praying for a review of the order dated July 28,1958 in the light of the amended s.9.
Upon that, the respondent filed two petitions in the High Court, C.M.P. No.
The appellant appealed to the High Court against the two decrees.
1835 of 1958.
The respondent, therefore, filed C.M.P. No.
1080 for the companystruction of a building suitable for use as a theatre.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Subsequently, on July 14, 1937 Abhirama Chettiar assigned his rights to the appellant.
The Commissioners fees will be paid by the companymissioner who will bear it himself.
The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for its ejectment.
The High Court also transferred the C.M.P. Nos.
1835 of 1958 in the appeal arising out of the suit for ejectment and prayed for directions under s. 9 of the Act for the sale of the site to it.
The learned Subordinate Judge held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the amended s. 9 of the Act, and directed the Commissioner to determine the minimum extent of land necessary for companyvenient enjoyment by the appellant to take steps for fixing the price thereof on the basis of the average market value of the three years immediately preceding the date of its order.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated March 30,1971 of the Madras High Court dismissing a revision petition arising out of proceedings under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.
XIII of 1960.
On July 28, 1958 Panchapkesa Iyer J. passed the following order I declare that the petitioner is entitled to purchase the site companycerned in the petition under Section 9 of the Act, but on paying the full market value current today as freely undertaken by himself.
7241 and 7242 of 1960 to the trial companyrt for companysideration, and directed the trial companyrt to fix the market value and pass final orders in C.M.P. No.
7242 of 1960 was dismissed as superfluous.
Abhirama Chettiar companystructed a theatre on the site.
The appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
As soon as this order becomes final the petitioner will withdraw A.S. No.
It was only after such order was made that the application and the suit would stand companycluded.
Almost fifty years ago, on September 19, 1934, the respondent and his mother granted a lease in favour of one Abhirama Chettiar in respect of 50 cents of open land in Coimbatore for a period of twenty years on an annual rent of Rs.
S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Gopal Subramanium and Mrs. Saroja Gopalakrishnan for the Appellant.
The High Court affirmed that the case was governed by the amended s. 9 of the Act, and rejected the companytention of the appellant that C.M.P. No.
And companysequently, it was number governed by the provisions of the amended s.9.
Now, the appellant had already filed C.M.P. No.
Govindan Nair, Miss Seita Vaidyalingam and Mrs. Baby Krishnan for the Respondent.
The appeal was dismissed.
On January 16, 1957 the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, decreed the respondents suit for possession with mesne profits and dismissed the appellants suit.
1601 of 1971.
100 of 1957 and 255 of 1957 on the file of this Court, as infructuous as undertaken by him, and they will then be dismissed without companyts.
Against that order the respondent preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed.
XX XX XX XX 3 a on payment of the price fixed under clause b of sub section 1 the companyrt shall pass an order directing the companyveyance by the landlord to the tenant of the extent of land for which the said price was fixed.
7241 of 1960 praying for the review and modification of the order dated July 28, 1958 in the light of the amended s. 9, and C.M.P. No.
19883 of 1968.
Two companytentions have been raised by the appellant in this appeal.
Against the order of the trial companyrt the appellant filed an appeal in the companyrt of the learned First Additional Judge, Coimbatore.
The companyrt shall by the same order direct the tenant to put the landlord into possession of the remaining extent of the land, if any.
The stage for passing such order had number been reached yet when the principal Act was amended by Act XIII of 1960.
On that application Panchapakesa Iyer J. had passed an order dated July 28, 1958 holding the appellant entitled to purchase the site on paying the full market value current on that date, and had directed the trial companyrt to appoint a Commissioner to fix the value of the site.
