AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—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.
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.
Section 11 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act says,
No suits in ejectment or applications u/s 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.
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.
The appeal fails and will be dismissed with costs.