M.K. Rajagopal Chettiar vs Razak Sahib alias Abdur Razack

Mack, J.—The petitioner is a landlord who filed four suits for ejecting four tenants from huts built on a piece of vacant land in Washer,

manpet. The tenants pleaded that they were entitled to protection under City Tenants Protection Act within one mouth of service of notice of the

suit, filed petitions u/s 9, City Tenants Protection Act for an order that the landlord be directed to sell the laud to them for a price to be fixed by the

Court in accordance with that section. The suits were dismissed as three months notice was not given u/s 11 of the Act upholding the contentions

of the tenants that they were entitled to protection. At the time the suits were dismissed, the petitions of the tenants u/s 9 were pending. It was

contended on behalf of the landlord that these petitions should have been merely dismissed as no order for ejectment had in fact been passed. The

Registrar of the Small Causes Court has rightly in my opinion repelled this contention and held that notwithstanding the dismissal of the ejectment

suits these petitions u/s 9 should be enquired into and disposed of. Only one revision petition has been filed by the landlord against one tenant,

apparently as a sort of test case.

The same argument which failed to prevail with the lower Court is advanced before me, namely, that on a construction of Section 3 of the Act

read with Section 9, a tenant is only entitled to compensation on ejectment and that no decree for ejectment having been passed, the tenants''

petitions u/s 9 do not legally arise for determination. According to Section 8 every tenant shall on ejectment be entitled to be paid as compensation,

the value of any building which might have been erected by him etc. Section 9 (1) is as follows:

Any tenant who is entitled to compensation u/s 3 against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted . . . may within one month alter the service

on him of the 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, etc.

Section 9, City Tenants Protection Act gives no right to a tenant to apply to the Court for an order directing the landlord to sell the land to him

under the provisions of that section until the landlord files a suit in ejectment against him. There are two conditions prescribed to entitle a tenant to

make such an application: (1) He must be entitled to compensation u/s 3 and (2) a suit in ejectment must be filed against him. The contention

advanced before me is based on Section 3 which entitles the tenant to ""compensation on ejectment"". It is argued that until an ejectment decree has

been passed no claim to compensation arises. This construction taken to its logical conclusion read with Section 9 would make it impossible for

any tenant to make any application at all u/s 9 unless there has been an ejectment decree passed against him; whereas Section 9 clearly lays down

that a tenant is entitled to file a petition u/s 9 if he is entitled to compensation and if a suit in ejectment has been instituted prescribing a period of

one month from service of notice of such suit within which these petitions must be filed. The learned advocate for the landlord urges that the

petitions filed u/s 9 should be dismissed with an order that no further orders are necessary in view of the dismissal of the ejectment suits. I am

wholly unable to agree and as I read the two sections 3 and 9, the tenant''s right to file a petition u/s 9 accrues on his being served with notice of a

suit in ejectment nor can that right be taken away by the dismissal of the ejectment suit. I am unable to follow the learned advocate''s arguments

that with the dismissal of the ejectment suit the parties shall be merely restored to the position they occupied before the ejectment suits were filed.

The statute gives the tenant a specific right u/s 9(1), and it is incumbent on the Court to dispose of his petition u/s 9 quite apart from the manner in

which the ejectment suits have been terminated. I agree with the view taken by the teamed Registrar and dismiss this petition with costs.