IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.4.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA W.A.Nos.548 & 549 of 2008 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 V.Babu .. Appellant in W.A.548 of 2008 E.Manoharan .. Appellant in W.A.549 of 2008 vs. 1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 2. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sundararaja Perumal and Anjaneyar Samy Tirukoil, Alathur Subramaniam Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 112. .. Respondents in both Writ Appeals Writ Appeal No.548 of 2008 against the order of this Court dated 31.3.2008 in W.P.No.2509 of 2005 to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in P.M.63806/03/Rs. dated 13.02.04 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.03.04 and quash the same and directing respondents to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respected of the land measuring 881 sq.ft in 73/32 Arimuthu Maistry street, choolai, chennai 112 as per the decree in CMA 212/83 dated 31.10.85 on the file of the VIIth Additional Judge city Civil Court, Chennai. Writ Appeal No.549 of 2008 against the order of this Court dated 31.3.2008 in W.P.No.2510 of 2005 to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus and to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.ka.84424/03/R.2 dated 24.01.04 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.3.04 and quash them and directing the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in faver of the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 1383 sq.ft in 70/30 Arimuthu Maistry Street, Choolai, Chennai 112 as per the decree in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C.M.A 209/1983 dated 31.10.85 on the file of the XII Additional Judge, City Civil Court Chennai. For appellant : Mr.Kalyana Sundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Sethuraman For respondents: Mr.T.Chandrasekar, Spl.G.P. for RR-1 & 2 JUDGMENT (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J) The appellants (writ petitioners) preferred the respective Writ Petitions against the order of the first respondent-Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in Na.Ka.No.63806/03/R.2, dated 13.2.2004 and in Na.Ka.No.84424/03/R.2, dated 24.1.2004 and the consequential order of the second respondent- Executive Officer of Arulmighu Sundararaja Perumal Thirukoil, Alathur, Choolai, Chennai, dated 23.3.2004 and also for directions to the respondents to execute and register sale deed in their favour, in respect of the land measuring 881 Sq.Ft. in Door No.73/32, Arimuthu Maistry Street, Choolai, Chennai-102 (in W.P.No.2509 of 2005) and in respect of the land measuring 1383 Sq.Ft. in Door No.70/30, Arimuthu Maistry Street, Choolai-102 (in W.P.No.2510 of 2005). 2. The learned single Judge, having dismissed the Writ Petitions, the appellants have preferred these Writ Appeals against the common order of the learned single Judge, dated 31.3.2008 passed in W.P.Nos.2509 and 2510 of 2005. 3. It is alleged by the appellant-V.Babu (petitioner in W.P.No.2509 of 2005) that his father's elder sister Chellammal, became a tenant under the second respondent-Temple in respect of 881 Sq.Ft. in Door No.73/32, Arimuthu Maistry Street, also called Sundararaja Perumal Street, Choolai, Chennai-102 and the second respondent-Temple filed an ejectment suit in O.S.No.4072 of 1979 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. After receiving the summons in the suit, the said Chellammal filed I.A.No.13647 of 1979 under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, to convey the property in her name for a sum to be determined. The Commissioner appointed, has determined the amount at Rs.5,506.25, which was paid before the Court as per the instalments permitted. As against the said order in the interlocutory application, the second respondent-Executive Officer of the Temple filed C.M.A.No.212 of 1983 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and in the appeal stage, the extent was determined as 881 Sq.Ft. According to the petitioner, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,422.49 and he has paid the difference in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount of Rs.916.24 before the date fixed by the Court, which was 30.3.1986. It is the further case of the petitioner in W.P.No.2509 of 2005 that the said Chellammal has received money from the petitioner's father Vallal and entered into an agreement on 20.4.1985, pursuant to which, the petitioner was put in possession of the property ultimately and the petitioner's father approached the second respondent to execute sale deed and there was no response. In the meantime, Chellammal died in 1992 and the petitioner's father also died in 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner has made representation to the respondents to execute the sale deed and as there was no reply, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19675 of 2003, which was disposed of on 21.8.2003, with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks. It is further alleged that the when the said Writ Petition was argued, it was referred to by the learned Government Pleader that under Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 2 of 1996, the Temple lands have been exempted from the purview of the Act and in those circumstances, the direction as stated above, was issued. The first respondent passed an order on 24.1.2004, addressed to the second respondent that in view of the Amendment Act 2 of 1996, since the Temple has been exempted from the purview of the City Tenants Protection Act, no sale deed can be executed. 4. Likewise, it is alleged by the appellant-E.Manokaran (petitioner in W.P.No.2510 of 2005) that one Rajammal, the petitioner's mother's elder sister was a tenant in respect of the land measuring 1383 Sq.Ft. at Door No.70/30, Arimuthu Maistry Street, also called Sundararaja Perumal Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 102. The second respondent filed an ejectment suit in O.S.No.4074 of 1979 on the file of Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Pending the suit, Rajammal has filed I.A.No.19523 of 1979 under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act to convey the land and the said application was ordered on 27.1.1983, directing the said Rajammal to pay a sum of Rs.8,643.75 in 25 equal instalments. On appeal in C.M.A.No.209 of 1983 filed by the second respondent against the order in the said application, VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, disposed of the appeal on 31.10.1985, increasing the amount payable to Rs.10,084.40 and permitted to pay the said amount on or before 30.3.1986. According to the petitioner, in the meantime, the said Rajammal died. The petitioner made the payments, last of which was on 16.3.1986, to the credit of the suit. Despite several representations, there was no response and a legal notice was also issued. It is further alleged that the two sons of Rajammal, viz., Natraj and Moorthy, by agreement, have put the petitioner in possession. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.19284 of 2003 and an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ injunction was granted restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession and ultimately, by order dated 21.8.2003, the said Writ Petition was disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, even though the learned Government Advocate has raised the plea that by that time, Act 2 of 1996 came into effect, exempting the Temple land from the purview of the City Tenants Protection Act. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, while relying on the provisions of Chennai City Tenants Protection Act and a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2006 (2) MLJ 281 (Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam by Fit Person, Madras vs. Kasthuriammal), submitted that the case of the appellants, is covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench, relevant portion of the same is quoted hereunder: "33. As indicated above, when a tenant is found to be entitled to the protection under Section 9 of the Act, the procedure contemplated i n Secs.9(1)(b) and Sec.9(2) and Sec.9(3) has to be followed. The first step contemplated under Sec.9 (1)(b) of the Act is that the Court must decide the minimum extent of the land required for the convenient enjoyment of the land. The second step is that the Court shall fix the price of the minimum extent on the average market value. The third step is that the Court shall order payment into Court by tenant. Then the fourth step is that on intimation about the payment within the stipulated time, the Court shall pass an order directing conveyance by the landlord to the tenant. The moment such an order is passed, the suit or proceedings shall stand automatically dismissed. Thereafter, no further judicial order is contemplated." "39. The expression 'satisfied in full' which is referred to in the proviso, would relate to the order passed under Sec.9(1)(a) directing the tenant to pay the price determined. The moment tenant deposited the amount the order is fully satisfied. Having being satisfied, the trial Court made a further order directing the landlord to execute the sale deed." 6. It would be evident from the impugned order of the learned single Judge that the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2007 (5) CTC 881 (SC) (S.Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission), wherein, the Supreme Court held as follows: "11. Finally, Mr.M.N.Krishnamani placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madras https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ High Court rendered in CRP (NPD) No.2758 of 1996 titled Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam vs. Kasthuriammal (2006 (2) CTC 452), submitted that the moment tenant deposited the amount the order is fully satisfied. He further pointed out that as per the said decision the moment the order under Section 9(3)(a) is passed, it shall be construed that the proceedings got terminated and the suit stood dismissed as per Section 9(3)(b) of the Act. We are unable to accept the said proposition. The relevant provisions are as follows: "9(3)(a). On payment of the price fixed under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) the Court shall pass an order directing the conveyance by the landlord to the tenant of the extent of land for which the said price was fixed. The Court shall by the same order direct the tenant to put the landlord into possession of the remaining extent of the land, if any, the stamp duty and registration fee in respect of such conveyance shall be borne by the tenant. (b). On the order referred to in Clause (a) being made, the suit or proceeding shall stand dismissed, and any decree or order in ejectment that may have been passed therein but which has not been executed shall be vacated." It is clear that if the tenant complies with the order passed under Section 9(1)(b) and deposits the amount within the time as fixed, the Court has to pass an order directing the conveyance by the landlord to the tenant. It is true that as per Section 9(3)(b) on passing an order under Clause (a) the Suit or proceeding shall stand dismissed. In the light of the language used in Clause (a) i.e. "conveyance" to be made by the landlord to the tenant, till the proper document conveying title to the tenant it is presumed that the proceeding is kept pending. To put it clear that unless the sale deed is executed by the landlord in favour of the tenant or in the alternative by the Court on behalf of the landlord the fruits of the decree can not be realised. The suit or proceeding will come to an end immediately on execution of sale deed either by the landlord or by the Court on behalf of the landlord. In our case, as said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ earlier, the sale deed was executed only on 28.10.1996, however the amended Act 2/96 came into force on 11.1.1996 much earlier to the execution of sale deed. The view expressed in the Full Bench decision runs counter to the language used in the statute and we are unable to accept the same." 7. From the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, it would be evident that the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in the decision reported in 2006 (2) M.L.J. 281, was not accepted by the Supreme Court and the Apex Court gave its own independent finding, and thereby, the Full Bench decision stands over-ruled by the judgment of the Supreme Court. In view of the specific finding of the Supreme Court, we find that the learned single Judge has rightly refused to grant the relief in terms of the Full Bench judgment. We are also of the opinion that the case of the appellants herein being covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, they are not entitled to get the relief. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned common order passed by the learned single Judge. 8. There being no merits, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /true copy/ Sub. Assistant Registrar cs To 1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 2. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sundararaja Perumal and Anjaneyar Samy Tirukoil, Alathur Subramaniam Street, Choolai Chennai-600 112. + 2 cc to Mr.G.Sethuraman, Advocate SR No.25006,25007 Writ Appeal Nos.548 and 549 of 2008 KJ(CO) JJM(30.05.08) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/