Skip to content


Rao Bahadur V. Ranganathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Mariappa Mudali and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad386; (1943)1MLJ102
AppellantRao Bahadur V. Ranganathan Chettiar and ors.
RespondentMariappa Mudali and ors.
Excerpt:
.....notices expiring on the 30th june, 1936. they failed to comply with the notices and consequently the appellants were compelled to file the present suit for the ejectment of the defendants. one was that the suit was bad for multifariousness and another was that it could not be maintained because the provisions of section 11 of the madras city tenants protection act, 1921, had not been complied with. the city civil court accepted the plea of the defendants that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness and dismissed it on that ground. mambalam was included in the city area by a notification dated the 18th january, 1924, and the act came into force on the 21st february, 1922. this argument is clearly untenable......and another was that it could not be maintained because the provisions of section 11 of the madras city tenants protection act, 1921, had not been complied with. the city civil court accepted the plea of the defendants that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness and dismissed it on that ground. the appellants then appealed to this court. the appeal was heard by patanjali sastri, j., who disagreed with the opinion of the trial judge that the suit was bad for multifariousness, but he dismissed the appeal because he considered that the plea based on section 11 of the madras city tenants protection act was well founded. this appeal is from the learned judge's decision, under clause 15 of the letters patent. we consider that the decision is correct.3. section 11 of the madras city.....
Judgment:

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the appellants in the City Civil Court for the ejectment of the respondents from certain lands in the Mambalam area of Madras. The appellants are the trustees of the Sri Parthasarathiswami Temple in Triplicane. Before the year 1882, the then trustees had leased to one Ramaswami Mudali an area of some eleven acres. The lessee died in 1882, leaving four sons, and the trustees decided to grant to each of them a lease of a portion of the land. Accordingly the area was divided into four plots. A part of each plot was regarded as building land and the rest agricultural land. To each brother was allotted one plot and he was treated as a yearly tenant thereof. Their respective descendants have been similarly treated. The lessees and their descendants have erected substantial buildings on their respective portions. The buildings cover nearly half of the total area. The present lessees have frequently defaulted in the payment of the rent and from time to time the respondent trustees have had to institute suits to enforce payment. In 1935 the then trustees decided to terminate the leases. Accordingly on the 21st December, 1935, notices to quit were served upon them, the notices expiring on the 30th June, 1936. They failed to comply with the notices and consequently the appellants were compelled to file the present suit for the ejectment of the defendants.

2. Various defences were raised. One was that the suit was bad for multifariousness and another was that it could not be maintained because the provisions of Section 11 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, had not been complied with. The City Civil Court accepted the plea of the defendants that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness and dismissed it on that ground. The appellants then appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by Patanjali Sastri, J., who disagreed with the opinion of the trial Judge that the suit was bad for multifariousness, but he dismissed the appeal because he considered that the plea based on Section 11 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act was well founded. This appeal is from the learned Judge's decision, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. We consider that the decision is correct.

3. Section 11 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act says,

No suits in ejectment or applications under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, shall be instituted or presented against a tenant until the expiration of three months next after notice in writing has been given to him requiring him to surrender possession of the land and building, and offering to pay compensation for the building and trees, if any, and stating the amount thereof. A copy of such notice shall at the same time be sent to the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras.

It is admitted that no offer of compensation was made to the respondents and therefore the notices of the 21st December, 1935, did not comply with the section.

4. As before Patanjali Sastri, J., the appellants say that the Act does not apply because Mambalam was incorporated in the City of Madras after it came into force. Mambalam was included in the City area by a notification dated the 18th January, 1924, and the Act came into force on the 21st February, 1922. This argument is clearly untenable. Section 1 (2) says that the Act extends to the City of Madras. Section 3 (5) of the Madras General Clauses Act, 1891, says that the expression ' City of Madras ' shall mean such local area as is declared from time to time to be the City of Madras under any Act for the time being in force relating to the municipal affairs of the City. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act is intended for the protection of tenants within the limits of the City. Mambalam is now within those limits and consequently tenants in Mambalam are entitled to the benefits of the Act. The respondents are tenants of lands in Mambalam and as the appellants have not complied with Section 11 of the Act they are unable to maintain the present suit.

5. The appeal fails and will be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //