1 filed a companynter to this interlocutory application.
1 by an appeal preferred before the Madras High Court.
1, the learned trial Judge processed to pass an order dismissing the suit under the provisions of s. 4 4 This order of dismissal was challenged by respondent No.
In 1945, he sub leased the property to the second respondent, A. Muthukumaran.
Accordingly, the value of the improvements made by the appellant and respondent No.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 17, 1960 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No.
On the same date, respondent No.
1956, respondent No.
1 sent a cheque to the Court in regard to the said amount .The said cheque was duly cashed and the amount credited in the accounts of the Court on November 20, 1956.
1 had number made the deposit within three months from the date of the decree, and claiming that by virtue of the provision prescribed by s. 4 4 of the Act, the Court was bound to dismiss the suit filed by respondent No.
Since this amendment companyld number help respondent No.
64,661 13 5 under s. 4 1 of the Act.
On November 5, 1956, respondent No.
1 for ejecting him and respondent No.
1 instituted a suit for the eviction of the appellant and respondent No.
675 of 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On October 1, 1956, the appellant filed an application I.A. No.
64,661 13 5 by the plaintiff to the first defendant being the companypensation for the superstructure belonging to the first defendant.
On the premises thus let out to him, the appellant erected a building for the purpose of exhibiting cinematographic films.
The appellant was the first defendant in the said proceedings.
This decree did number in terms direct respondent No.
1 to say the, said amount within three months from its date, and it is the companyission to issue this direction which has caused the present companytroversy between the parties.
While the suit was pending the Act was extended to the Municipal Town of Tiruchirappalli.
92 of 1957.
Pending these applications, on November 15.
V. R. Tatachari, for the appellant.
3283/1 A/2 to the appellant, V. K. A. Ranganatha Konar, for a term of three years at a rent of Rs.
2 and for arrears of rent.
301 of 1956 inviting the attention of the Court to the fact that respondent No.
On September 1, 1944, respondent No.
1, Tiruchirappalli Municipal Council, leased T.S. No.
Nevertheless, the appellant and respondent No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and S. Venkatakrishnan, for respondent No.
On March 26, 1956, the trial Court passed a decree which, inter alia, provided that the defendants do put the plaintiff in possession of the suit properties described hereunder on payment of Rs.
100/ per month.
On the date the trial Judge passed an order directing that the decree should be amended by inserting a direction to the effect that the deposit should be made before June 23, 1956, that is to say within three months from March 26, 1956 on which date the original decree had been passed.
In 1947, the lease was renewed for a period of three years, and so, it expired on March 31, 1950.
filed another interlocutory application praying that the decree in question should be amended so as to specify the time within which the deposit should be made.
2 was determined by the learned trial Judge and declared to be Rs.
2 companytinued in possession.
On December 23, 1954, respondent No.
