Sabbammal vs Sadasivam

Ratnam, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, Erode, in

C.M.A. No. 23 of 1991. The petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1983 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)

Act, Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, against the respondent herein praying for an order of eviction on the grounds of wilful default

in the payment of rent, sub-letting and bona fide requirement for purposes of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent was served with

notice in that eviction petition on 26.2.1983. On 25.3.1983, the respondent purported to file O.P. No. 13 of 1983, under S. 9 of the Tamil Nadu

City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying that the petitioner should be directed to sell the site to the respondent at a

price to be fixed by Court. The application so made was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent is not entitled to invoke the

benefits of S. 9 of the Act. The learned District Munsif, Erode, took the view that as O.P. No. 13 of 1983 had been filed by the respondent within

one month from the dale of service of notice in the eviction proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1983, that application could be maintained and that

the entire site would be absolutely necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the respondent and in that view, he allowed the application and

directed the matter to be called for determining the market value. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the petitioner preferred C.M.A. No. 23 of

1991 before the District Court, Erode. The learned District Judge concurred with the conclusion of the learned District Munsif that the application

claiming the benefits of S. 9 of the Act in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1983 having been filed within one month after the dale of service of notice in the

eviction petition on the respondent, was in time. However, with reference to the extent required for the convenient enjoyment of the respondent,

the court below was of the view that only after a report in that regard is made available to the court, that can be dealt with, It is the correctness of

the orders so passed by the courts below that is questioned in this civil revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court

below had committed an error in holding that the application filed by the respondent under S. 9 of the Act, is maintainable. According to learned

counsel, proceedings for eviction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act cannot by any means be equated

to a suit in ejectment, as ordinarily understood, and in the absence of the institution of a suit in ejectment and the service of summons therein, there

is no question of the filing of any application under S. 9 of the Act, claiming benefits thereunder. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent tried to maintain that the application filed by the respondent, claiming the benefits of S. 9 of the Act was properly laid and is

maintainable. Under The C.R.P. is allowed S. 9(l) of the Act, any tenant, who is entitled to compensation under S. 3 of the Act and against whom

a suit in ejectment has been instituted or proceeding under S. 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882, has been taken, may, within

one month alter the service of summons on him, 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. From the aforesaid provision, it is seen that the institution of a suit in

ejectment, is one of the essential conditions to be fulfilled before the tenant can maintain an application under S. 9 of the Act claiming benefits

thereunder. In this case, the petitioner has instituted eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act and the proceedings initiated under that enactment, cannot be equated to a suit in ejectment, as contemplated in S. 9 of the Act.

Under those circumstances, the filing of the application by the respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1983, claiming benefits under S. 9 of the Act, was

not in order and should not have been entertained and dealt with. The courts below fell into an error in holding that the application is maintainable

and that the respondent is entitled to the benefits of S. 9 of the Act. and the orders of the court below are set aside and O.P. No. 13 of 1983 will

stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.