Ramaswami Pillai and another vs Thavasi Konar

Ismail, J.—The suit property is situate at a distance of two furlongs 55 ft. and 7 inches from the Madurai Municipal limits. The common case of the parties it that, in or about 1935, the appellants herein became the lessees of the suit property which was a vacant site on that date. The respondent herein purchased the property or about 1951 from the original lessor. The appellants herein put up superstructures on the site soon after the lease. The present suit (O.S. No. 76 of 1964) was instituted by the respondent herein in the court of the District Munsif of the Thirumangalam for ejectment of the appellants from the suit site. The appellants herein resisted the claim. Based on the pleadings between the parties, the learned District Munsif framed six issues. However, during the pendency of the suit, the Madras City Tenants Protection Amendment Act, 1964 (Madras Act XVI of 1964) came into force. Purporting to rely on S. 3 of the said Act, the appellants herein filed I.A. No. 1165 of 1964 praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the same abated under S. 3 of the Act. The learned District Munsif by his judgment and order dated 15th February, 1965, allowed the application filed by the appellants and in view of that dismissed the suit. The respondent herein preferred A.S. No. 51 of 1965 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment and order dated 9th September, 1965 came to the conclusion that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act did not apply to the area in which the suit property was situate and consequently, the suit did not abate as contended for by the appellants. In this view he set aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif and remanded the suit for fresh disposal after trial on all the issues framed by the learned District Munsif.

It is against this judgment and order, the present C.M.A. has been filed by the appellants.

The sole question that is argued in the present appeal is as to the applicability of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act to the area is which the suit property is situate. Mr. V. Ramaswami, the learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that by virtue of the definition of the expression "building" occurring in S. 2(1) of the Act, as amended by the Madras Act XVI of 1964, it must be held that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act applied to the area in which the suit property is situate and consequently by virtue of S. 3 of the Madras Act XVI of 1964 the suit itself has abated. S. 2(1) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act 1922, as amended by Madras Act XIX of 1955 is as follows:

it extends to the City of Madras and the State Government may by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, extent this Act to any other Municipal town and any specified village within five miles of the City of Madras or such municipal town with effect from such dale as may be specified in the notification.

The expression "building" was defined in S. 2(1) of the Act as including a house, out house, stable, latrine, shed but and any other structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever used�

(i) for residential or non-residential purposes, in the City of Madras, in the municipal towns of Coimbatore, Madurai, Salem, and Tiruchirapali and in any village within five mile of the City of Madras or of the Municipal owns aforesaid, and (ii) for residential purposes only, in any other area and includes the appurtenance thereto.

This definition was further amended by Madras Act 16 of 1964 only with reference to clause (i) and the amended clause (1) is:--

for residential or non-residential purposes in the City of Madras, in the municipal towns of Coimbatore, Madurai, Salem and Tiruchirapalli, or such other Municipal town as the Government may by notification, specify, and in any village within five miles of the city of Madras or of the municipal towns or town aforesaid.

S. 3 of this Act provided that every proceeding instituted by a landlord in respect of any non-residential building or part thereof situated in any Municipal town specified in the notification issued under sub-clause (k) of S. 2 of the principal Act, as amended by this Act and the Villages within five miles of such Municipal town and pending before any court or other authority or officer on the date on which the said notification takes effect shall, in so far as the proceeding relates to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act as amended by Madras Act 16 of 1964 in respect of such building or part, abare.

The argument of Mr. Ramaswami is that as soon as the Government issues a notification under S. 1(2) of the Act, extending the Act to a municipal town, automatically the Act becomes applicable to any definite village in the belt area, viz, within a radius of five miles of such municipal town. The learned counsel contends that the definitions of the term "building" in S. 2(1)(i) of the Act as amended by Act 16 of 1964 supports this construction of his. In opinion, this contention is without any basis. The language of S. 1(2) of the Act is so clear that it does not admit of any such construction as contended for by Mr. Ramaswami. The Act provides that the State Government may extend the Act to any other municipal town. It has also to be noted that the Act by its own force applies to the city of Madras and to any village within a radius of five miles from the City of Madras, the Act will apply if there is a notification under S. 1(2) of the Act to that effect. Therefore from the language of the section itself, it is impossible to accept the contention of the learned counsel that for the purpose of applying the Act to a village in the belt area no separate notification is necessary and once a notification is made extending the Act to a municipal town, then, automatically, the Act applies to the villages in the belt area. The expression ''specified village'' occurring in this section itself is sufficient to negative any such contention, because the notification has to specify the villages within the radius of five miles, to which the State Government extends the Act.

On the other hand, the contention of Mr. Ramaswami is that even though S. 1(2) is capable of only such construction, if S. 2(1) is read with S. 2(1) as amended by Act 16 of 1964, it will head to the construction contended for by him. I am unable to agree with this submission. For one thing, in Sec. 1(2) there is no ambiguity at all and the language of the section is absolutely clear. Once the language of S. 1(2) is unambiguous and clear, there is absolutely justification for seeking to amend or after the language or the meaning of that section with reference to some other provision contained in the Act. As a matter of fact, if the argument of Mr. Ramaswami is to be accepted, the expression ''in any other area occurring in S. 2(1)(ii) of the Act will mean not any area to which the Act has been extended but every area. On the other hand, the language of S. 2(1) is no sense controls the language contained in S. 1(2) of the Act. Both in S. 2 (1)(i) and S. 2(1)(ii), the village and are area will mean only the village and the area to force, be which the Act applies by virtue of its own cause the area is situate within the City of Madras or by virtue of the Notification of the Government extending the application of the Act under Sec. 1(2) of the Act. In view of these considerations, I am of opinion that the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge that the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, even after its amendment by Madras Act XVI of 1964, has no application to the village in question must be upheld. I must point out that in this case it is the admitted case of the parties that no separate notification under S. 1(2) has been issued by the Government extending the Act to Kochadai village which lies within the radius of five miles from the Municipal town of Madurai and in which alone the suit property is situate, apart from the notification of the Government under S. 1(2) of the Act extending the Act to the Municipal of Madurai.

There is one other contention which appears to have been put forward before the learned Subordinate Judge and it has been dealt with by him in para 10 of his judgment. The contention appears to be that though originally the lease was of a vacant site, it was leased out for the purpose of putting up a construction and consequently the original lease itself would be a lease of the building attracting the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In this connection, the learned Subordinate Judge has referred to certain decisions of this Court. If this conclusion has the effect of barring the suit in the civil Court in view of the fact that the provisions contained in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act specify a particular procedure and forum for evicting a tenant, the remand of the suit by the learned Subordinate Judge itself would have been unjustified. However, it is brought to my notice that the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act has not been extended to Kochadai village and therefore the Act has no application to the suit property. Before me, the learned Counsel for the appellants could not say whether the Act has been extended to Koehadai village or not. Consequently that question will have to be considered by the learned District Munsif, if the parties urge the same before him, while disposing of the suit pursuant to the order of remand made by the learned Subordinate Judge. Under these circumstances, this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. No leave.