Case: V. K. A. Ranganatha Konar Vs. The Tiruchirappalli Municipal Council, By Itscommissioner,

On September 1, 1944, respondent No. 1, Tiruchirapalli Municipal Council, leased T. S. No. 3283/1-A/2 to the appellant, V. K. A. Ranganatha Konar, for a term of three years at a rent of Rs. 100 per month.On the premises thus let out to him, the appellant erected a building for the purpose of exhibiting cinematographic films. In 1945, he subleased the property to the second respondent, A. Muthukumaran. In 1947, the lease was renewed for a period of three years, and so, it expired on March 31, 1950. Nevertheless, the appellant and respondent No. 2 continued in possession.2. On December 23, 1954, respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for the eviction of the appellant and respondent No. 2 and for arrears of rent. While the suit was pending, the Act was extended to the Municipal town of Tiruchirapalli. Accordingly, the value of the improvements made by the appellant and respondent No. 2 was determined by the learned trial Judge and declared to be Rs.64,661-13-5 under S. 4 (1) of the Act. 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. 64,661-13-5 by the plaintiff to the first defendant being the compensation for the super structure belonging to the first defendant". The appellant was the first defendant in the said proceedings. This decree did not in terms direct respondent No. 1 to pay the said amount within three months from its date, and it is the omission to issue this direction which has caused the present controversy between the parties.3. On October 1, 1956, the appellant filed an application I. A. No. 301 of 1956 inviting the attention of the Court to the fact that respondent No. 1 had not 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. 1 for ejecting him and respondent No. 2. On November 5, 1956, respondent No. 1 filed a counter to this interlocutory application. On the same date, respondent No. 1 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. Pending these applications, on November 15, 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 realised credited in the account of the Court on November 20, 1956.On that 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. Since this amendment could not help respondent No. 1, the learned trial Judge proceeded to pass an order dismissing the suit under the provisions of S. 4(4).4. The order of dismissal was challenged by respondent No. 1 by an appeal preferred before the Madras High Court. It was urged before the High Court on behalf of respondent No. 1 that since the original decree did not give a specific direction that the amount of compensation should be paid within three months, the provisions of S. 4(4) could not be invoked until the decree was suitably amended. The argument was that it is only when the decree makes a direction calling upon the plaintiff to deposit a certain amount by way of compensation to the defendant-tenant within three months that the requirements of S. 4(1) are complied with, and it is only where a decree has been properly drawn in accordance with the requirements of S. 4(1) that the mandatory provisions of S. 4(4) could be invoked. In substance, the High Court has accepted this plea, with the result that the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the original decree passed on March 26, 1956, has been confirmed. The result of this decision is that respondent No. 1 is at liberty to take out execution for obtaining possession of the property. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and it is with this certificate that he has brought this appeal before us.

Reasoning:
In the case of such a decree, S. 4(4) cannot apply, because S. 4(4) postulates that a proper and valid decree has been passed in conformity with the requirements of S. 4(1). Section 4(4) provides a period of three months "from the date of the decree under sub-section (1)": it is the decree under sub-section (1) which is the decree under sub-section (1) which starts the period of limitation, and before a decree can be said to be a decree under sub-section (1), it must comply with all the requirements prescribed by the said sub-section; in the present case, the decree did not specify that the amount in question should be paid within three months, and so, it is not a decree properly passed under sub-section (1) and as such S. 4(4) cannot beis true that the decree would state that the landlord has to pay the amount within three months from its date; but having regard to the specific and mandatory terms in which S. 4(4) is couched, it would not be reasonable to construe S. 4(1) as controlling S. 4(4).The relevant clause provides that the decree shall direct that on payment by the landlord into Court, within three months, of the amount found due, the tenant shall put the landlord into possession. The clause in respect of the payment by the landlord into court within three months amounts to a condition which has to be satisfied by the landlord before the tenant is required to deliver to him possession of the property in question. In other words, reference to the payment by the landlord of the amount found due within the specified period in S. 4(1) is not so much a direction issued by the Court as specification of a condition expressly and independently provided by S. 4(4).11. The provision of S. 4 (4) clearly shows that if the amount found due is not paid within three months, the suit of the landlord shall stand dismissed. The opening clause of S. 4(4) shows that the amount has to be paid within three months from the date of the decree passed under sub-s. (1). The expression "the decree under sub-s. (1)" merely describes the sub-section under which the decree is passed, the emphasis in the context being on the date of the said decree and not so much on the strict compliance with the form prescribed by S. 4(1). If the decree is passed under S. 4 (1), its date is material for the purpose of deciding the period beyond which S. 4 (4) would come into operation. In other words, as soon as it is shown by a tenant that a decree has been passed under S. 4 (1) declaring the amount of compensation due to him from the landlord, he is entitled to claim that he is no longer under obligation to deliver possession of the property to the landlord, because three months have passed from the date of the decree and the amount declared as compensation has not been paid to him. If the decree happens to be defective in the sense that it does not reproduce the requirement of S. 4 (1) expressly in its terms, that would not take the case outside the purview of S. 4 (4). 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).The applicability of S. 4 (4) cannot be repelled merely on the ground that the decree passed under S. 4 (1) does not specify the period of three months within which the amount found due has to be paid. In our opinion, the logical way to reconcile S. 4 (1) and S. 4 (4) would be to treat the provision prescribed by S. 4 (4) as mandatory and paramount and read the relevant portion of S. 4 (1) accordingly. That is why even if the decree does not mention that the amount has to be paid within three months, the landlords obligation to make the payment within three months is still enforceable under S. 4 (4), otherwise defective decrees would deprive the tenants of the benefit intended to be conferred on them by S. 4would appear that what S. 4(1) purports to do is to require that the decree in the suit to which it applies shall, in the first instance, declare the amount found due by way of compensation. The said provision also requires that the decree shall declare that the tenant shall put the landlord into possession of the land on payment by the landlord into court, within three months from the date of the decree, of the amount found due. The two operative parts of the decree as contemplated by S. 4 (1) are: the declaration of the amount due to the tenant, and the direction to the tenant to deliver possession of the land to the landlord in case he paid into Court within three months of the date of the decree the amount declared due.