Case: Haridas Girdhardas &amp; Others Vs. Varadaraja Pillai &amp; Another

years from March 1, 1954 expiring with the month of February, 1964.5. In accordance with the terms of Clause 4 (d) of the lease deed, the plaintiffs exercised the option of buying the buildings erected on the demised land by letter dated February 27, 1964 and sent along with the full amount of Rupees 50,000/- by cheque in payment for all the superstructure without deducting any amount for depreciation, as provided in the. said clause of the lease deed, stating that they had decided not to stand on their strict legal rights to deduct depreciation but to pay the full price of Rupees 50,000/- as the buildings had been maintained and kept in good repair. Defendant No. 1 however, refused the sum of Rupees 50,000/- and contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any rights on the footing of Clause 4 (d) of the lease deed or to offer the sum of Rupees 50,000/- as the price for purchasing the superstructure put up by him on the land leased to him.6. The question that arises before us is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce Clause 4 (d) of the lease deed in view of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, as amended by the Amending Act of 1955.7. This Court construed the said Act and its various provisions in N. Vajrapani Naidu v. New Theatre Carnatic Talkies, (1964) 6 SCR 1015 = (AIR 1964 SC 1440 ) and in The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd. v. K. S. Subramania Iyer, AIR 1970 SC 1683 at pp. 1691-92. The second decision was not before the High Court when the Letters Patent Bench rendered its judgment. It seems to us that the case is covered by the judgment in the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case. In that case Vaidialingam J., speaking for the Court, observed :-"Therefore, in our opinion, the decision in Vairapanis case (supra) has been misunderstood by the learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench and the said decision is no authority for the proposition that the stipulation contained in the lease deed before us cannot come within the proviso to Section 12. The case before us is not one under which the tenant has in any manner contracted himself out of the rights conferred on him by the statute. On the other hand by allowing the building to stand on the property and agreeing to receive the amount of compensation provided for in the lease deed, the object of the legislation is fully satisfied. It must also be emphasised that the first part of S. 12 protects a tenant against the deprivation or limitation of his rights under the Act and the rights conferred by the Act do not directly relate to covenants relating to erection of buildings."8. Considering the facts of that case this Court held that Clause 2, in he deed, read with Clause 4, amounted to stipulations as to the erection of buildings and, in this view the proviso to Section 12 applied.9. We have set out the relevant clauses of the lease deed in this case and it seems to us that these clauses amount to a stipulation as to the erection of buildings and consequently the proviso to Section 12 applies.10. Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case, AIR 1970 SC 1683 was sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that in the present case the defendant was entitled to put up the building beyond the value of Rupees 50,000/-. But Clause 2 (c) of the lease deed, set out above, clearly shows that the plaintiffs required "a theatre with all proper offices and out buildings such as bazars, restaurants, motor and dunamo sheds etc., and fences, drains, sewers to be used for production and exhibition of films and for staging drama therein" to be erected. The plaintiffs wanted to ensure that the cost of the building would not be less than Rupees 50,000/- in order that the building would be of a proper quality of construction. There is no evidence as to what other buildings the defendant had put up. On these facts we cannot say that these were not stipulations as to the erection of buildings within the meaning of the proviso to Section 12.11. It must be remembered that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, was passed in 1922 to give protection to certain classes of tenants who had constructed buildings on others lands in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they paid a fair rent for the land. It was not the object of the Act to cover hope if the hope was entertained contrary to express stipulations as erection of buildings. Accordingly proviso to Section 12 exempted and stipulations made by the tenant in writing registered as to the erection of buildings, in so far as they related to buildings erected after the date of the contract.12. The plaintiffs-appellants applied for amendment of their plaint dated April 15, 1964, by adding the following words in the Prayer Clause:"(a) after the words: as from 1-3-1964 "and direct the defendant No. 1 to deliver possession to the Plaintiffs of the sites leased out to the defendant No. 1 under the aforesaid lease deeds and the buildings and superstructures built thereupon in good and satisfactory condition."(b) Delete Prayer (b) and in its place substitute the following :-"That the defendants do pay the plaintiffs the sum of Rupees 12,000 (twelve thousand) per month as mesne profits for use and occupation of the buildings and superstructures built upon the demised premises from 4-8-1968 till possession is handed over to the plaintiffs."We allowed the amendment to be made. The learned counsel for the defendant objected to the prayer regarding mesne profits but as the plaintiffs are limiting the mesne profits for use and occupation from August 4, 1968, i.e. three years before the date of the application for amending the plaint, the defendant can have no just cause to complain.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. This Court construed the said Act and its various provisions in N. Vajrapani Naidu v. New Theatre Carnatic Talkies, (1964) 6 SCR 1015   = (AIR 1964 SC 1440  ) and in The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd. v. K. S. Subramania Iyer, AIR 1970 SC 1683   at pp. 1691-92. The second decision was not before the High Court when the Letters Patent Bench rendered its judgment. It seems to us that the case is covered by the judgment in the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case. In that case Vaidialingam J., speaking for the Court, observedin our opinion, the decision in Vairapanis case (supra) has been misunderstood by the learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench and the said decision is no authority for the proposition that the stipulation contained in the lease deed before us cannot come within the proviso to Section 12. The case before us is not one under which the tenant has in any manner contracted himself out of the rights conferred on him by the statute. On the other hand by allowing the building to stand on the property and agreeing to receive the amount of compensation provided for in the lease deed, the object of the legislation is fully satisfied. It must also be emphasised that the first part of S. 12 protects a tenant against the deprivation or limitation of his rights under the Act and the rights conferred by the Act do not directly relate to covenants relating to erection of buildings.Considering the facts of that case this Court held that Clause 2, in he deed, read with Clause 4, amounted to stipulations as to the erection of buildings and, in this view the proviso to Section 12 applied.9. We have set out the relevant clauses of the lease deed in this case and it seems to us that these clauses amount to a stipulation as to the erection of buildings and consequently the proviso to Section 12 applies.10. Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case, AIR 1970 SC 1683   was sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that in the present case the defendant was entitled to put up the building beyond the value of Rupees 50,000/-. But Clause 2 (c) of the lease deed, set out above, clearly shows that the plaintiffs required "a theatre with all proper offices and out buildings such as bazars, restaurants, motor and dunamo sheds etc., and fences, drains, sewers to be used for production and exhibition of films and for staging drama therein" to be erected. The plaintiffs wanted to ensure that the cost of the building would not be less than Rupees 50,000/- in order that the building would be of a proper quality of construction. There is no evidence as to what other buildings the defendant had put up. On these facts we cannot say that these were not stipulations as to the erection of buildings within the meaning of the proviso to Section 12.11. It must be remembered that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, was passed in 1922 to give protection to certain classes of tenants who had constructed buildings on others lands in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they paid a fair rent for the land. It was not the object of the Act to cover hope if the hope was entertained contrary to express stipulations as erection of buildings. Accordingly proviso to Section 12 exempted and stipulations made by the tenant in writing registered as to the erection of buildings, in so far as they related to buildings erected after the date of the contract.