Skip to content


Syed Oomer Sahib Vs. Gopaul - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1924)ILR47Mad813
AppellantSyed Oomer Sahib
RespondentGopaul
Cases ReferredLatifa Bi v. Mottai Ammal I.L.R.
Excerpt:
madras city tenants' protection act (iii of 1922), section 9 - tenant against whom a decree for ejectment had been passed but not executed on the date of the act, whether entitled to apply under section 9. - .....the case of latifa bi v. mottai ammal i.l.r. (1923) mad. 836 was wrongly decided. the answer to the reference will therefore be in the affirmative.ramesam, j.2. i agree.wallace, j.3. i agree.
Judgment:

Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.

1. In this case (Civil Revision Petition No. 21 of 1923) the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 125 of 1921 in the Small Cause Court applied under Section 9 of the Madras Act III of 1922 for an order directing the plaintiff to sell the land in the suit. The sole question is whether at the time the Act came into force the defendant can be described as 'a tenant against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted.' It is not contended that those words can bear the extreme meaning that any tenant against whom a suit in ejectment had ever been instituted--a suit which might have been brought to a completion by execution and ejectment--is within these words of Section 9; but it is contended that it applies to a case where the suit in ejectment has resulted in judgment but has not been executed or completed by the process of ejectment. It seems to me that that contention is right and that the tenant intended by the section is a person who is threatened with ejectment as the result of legal proceedings instituted against him but has not, in pursuance of those proceedings, been actually ejected. It seems to me immaterial whether or no the proceedings resulted in a decree which might lead, but has not led, to an actual ejectment of the tenant. This is in accordance with the view expressed by the late Chief Justice and my brother Wallace in Kanniappa Chettiar v. Ramachandraiyar : (1924)46MLJ407 and I agree with them in thinking that the case of Latifa Bi v. Mottai Ammal I.L.R. (1923) Mad. 836 was wrongly decided. The answer to the reference will therefore be in the affirmative.

Ramesam, J.

2. I agree.

Wallace, J.

3. I agree.


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