Case: The New Theaters (Carnatic Talkies) Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. N. Vajrapani Naidu

2. 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. 1080 for the construction of a building suitable for use as a theatre. Abhirama Chettiar constructed a theatre on the site. Subsequently, on July 14, 1937 Abhirama Chettiar assigned his rights to the appellant. The appellant attorned to the respondent and was accepted as a tenant. In March, 1964, the respondent served notice upon the appellant calling upon it to vacate the property and surrender vacant possession of the site. 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. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for its ejectment. Shortly thereafter, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to extend the lease. On January 16, 1957 the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, decreed the respondents suit for possession with mesne profits and dismissed the appellants suit. The appellant appealed to the High Court against the two decrees. 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. The appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 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 application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that s. 9 was void. On July 28, 1958 Panchapkesa Iyer J. passed the followingdeclare that the petitioner is entitled to purchase the site concerned in the petition under Section 9 of the Act, but on paying the full market value current today as freely undertaken by himself. The lower Court will appoint a suitable experienced commissioner to fix the value of the site based on the market value prevalent this day (28th July 1958). The Commissioners fees will be paid by the commissioner who will bear it himself. In this petition all the parties will bear their own costs. As soon as this order becomes final the petitioner will withdraw A.S. No. 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 costs.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. Against that order the respondent preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed. The respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court. 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.4. 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. XIII of 1960. Upon that, the respondent filed two petitions in the High Court, C.M .P. No. 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. 7242 of 1960 praying for stay of the enquiry directed by that order. On April 1, 1964, upon the dismissal of t he respondents appeal in this Court, the High Court dismissed the appeals against the decrees passed by Panchapakesa Iyer J. as withdrawn. The High Court also transferred the C.M.P. Nos. 7241 and 7242 of 1960 to the trial court for consideration, and directed the trial court to fix the market value and pass final orders in C.M.P. No. 1835 of 1958. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the amended s. 9 of the Act, and directed t he Commissioner to determine the minimum extent of land necessary for convenient 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. C.M.P. No. 7242 of 1960 was dismissed as superfluous. Against the order of the trial court the appellant filed an appeal in the court of the learned First Additional Judge, Coimbatore. The appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1883 of 1968 in the High Court, and on March 30, 1971 the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition. The High Court affirmed that the case was governed by the amended s. 9 of the Act, and rejected the contention of the appellant that C.M.P. No. 7241 of 1960 was not competent in the High Court as the order dated July 28, 1958 by Panchapakesa Iyer J. had been confirmed by the Supreme Court, incontentions have been raised by the appellant in this appeal. 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. The other contention is that, in any event, the amended s. 9 should have been invoked in the appeal pending in this Court and the relief not having been sought there it was not open to the respondent to seek relief after the appeal has been disposed by this Court and the order of Panchapakesa Iyer J. had acquired finality.Before its amendment by Madras Act XIII of 1960, s. 9 provided as(1) Any tenant who is entitled to compensation under section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted or proceeding under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act 1882, taken by the landlord, may within one month of the date of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955, coming into force or of the date with effect from which this Act is extended to the municipal town or village in which the land is situated or within one month after the service on him of summons, apply to the court for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell the land for a price to be fixed by the court. The court shall fix the price according to the lowest market value prevalent within seven years preceding the date of the order and shall order that, within a period to be determined by the court, not being less than three months and not more than three years from the date of the order, the tenant shall pay into court or otherwise as directed the price so fixed in one or more installments with or without interest.(2) XX XX XX(3) On payment of the price the court shall pass a final order directing the conveyance of the land b y the landlord to the tenant. On such order 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 beits amendment, s. 9 now(1) (a) Any tenant who is entitled to compensation under section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted or proceeding under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, taken by the landlord, may within one month of the date of Madras City Tenants, Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955 coming into force or of the date with effect from which t his Act is extended to the municipal town or village in which the land is situated or within one month after the service on him of summons apply to the court for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the court, the whole or part of, the extent of land specified in the application.(b) on such application, the court shall first decide the minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant. The court, shall then fix the price of the minimum extent of the land decided as aforesaid, or of the extent of the land specified in the application under clause (a) whichever is less. The price aforesaid shall be the average market value of the three years immediately preceding the date of the order. The court shall order that within a period to be determined by the court not being less than three months and not more than three years from the date of the order, the tenant shall pay into court or otherwise as directed the price so fixed in one or more installments with or without interest.(2) XX XX XX XX(3) (a) on payment of the price fixed under clause (b) of(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 b e 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 execute d shall be vacated."

Reasoning: We are clear in our mind that if the suit was pending on the date when the amendments in the principal Act were brought into force, the amended provisions of the Act will govern the disposal of the suit.Now, the appellant had already filed C.M.P. No. 1835 of 1958 praying for directions under s. 9 for the sale of the site. 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 court to appoint a Commissioner to fix the value of the site. The order did not dispose of the application and the suit, for under the original s. (3) the statute contemplated an order by the court, after it was satisfied that the tenant had paid the price determined by it, directing the conveyance of the land by the landlord to the tenant. It was only after such order was made that the application and the suit would standthe scheme under the original section stood superseded by the scheme enacted under the amended sections the order of July 2 8, 1958 stood aborted and pursuant to the amended section fresh proceedings had to be taken by the court in order to dispose of the suit.The respondent, therefore, filed C.M.P. No. 7241 of 1960 praying for a review of the order dated July 28, 1 958 in the light of the amended s.9. In other words, the court was now called upon to dispose of the application of the appellant, not in the light of the provisions of the original s.9 but on the basis of the provisions of the amend ed s.9. We are of opinion that the trial court is right in taking the view, and the High Court in affirming it, that C.M.P. No. 1883 of 1968 and the suit had to be disposed of on the basis of the provisions of the amended s.9. The contention to the contrary raised by the appellant must fail.7. We are also unable to accept the other contention of the appellant that the respondent should have invoked the benefit of the amended s. 9 in the appeal pending in this Court, and that not having done so it was not open to the respondent to apply for relief in the court below after the appeal had been disposed of by this Court. It is apparent that the scope of the appeal filed in this Court was restricted to the validity of s.9 and s. 12 of the unamended Madras City Tenants Protection Act. It must be remembered that the order of Panchapakesa Iyer J, when gave rise to that appeal, was made before the Act was amended in 1960, and this Court concerned itself solely with the validity of the unamended statutory provisions. In fact, perusal of its judgment will show that this Court declined to consider the operation of the amendments brought about in 1960. In the circumstances, it is not possible to urge that the respondent might, or ought to, have insisted on relief under the amended s.9 in the appeal pending in this Court. It was, therefore, open to the respondent after the disposal of the appeal by this Court to apply to the court below for an order in terms of the amended s.9.