LAWS(MAD)-1978-8-32

M ARUMUGAM PILLAI Vs. K S KULLAPPAN

Decided On August 09, 1978
M Arumugam Pillai Appellant
V/S
K S Kullappan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S No. 332 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. On 28th August, 1974, the plaintiff obtained a decree for possession and for arrears of rent against the defendant. There is no dispute before met hat there are structures standing on the land in question and the structures would come within the definition of 'building' used for non-residential purposes, within the meaning of the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act (III of 1922), hereinafter referred to as the Act, as they stand amended. At the time when the decree came to be passed in the suit, the benefits of the Act were not extended to non-residential buildings in Kumbakonam Municipal area, where the property in question is situate. There is also no dispute before me that by G.O. Ms. No. 1285, Revenue, dated 31st May, 1975, the benefits of the Act were extended to non-residential buildings in the Municipal area of Kumbakonam. Taking advantage of the extension to the Municipal area of Kumbakonam, the defendant filed E.A. No. 445 of 1975 under sections 47 an 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for an order that the decree in the suit is not executable in view of the provisions of the Act having been made applicable to the building in question. The District Munsif, Kumbakonam, did not countenance the plea of the defendant and his application was dismissed. The defendant filed an appeal, C.M.A. No. 21 of 1976, which was heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam and the appellate Court also repelled the contentions of the defendant and the appeal was dismissed. The present revision is directed against the orders of the appellate Court.

(2.) The question that comes up for consideration in the present revision is what is the impact of the extension of the provisions of the Act to non-residential buildings by the G.O. concerned, after the decree in the suit has been passed, but before it has been executed anterior to the date on which the concerned notification had taken effect Section 2(1) of the Act defines 'building'. As it originally stood enacted, the section read as follows--

(3.) Unless and until a notification extending the provisions of the Act to buildings used for non-residential purposes those specifically mentioned in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, the rights, privilege and benefits of the Act cannot be claimed by such a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The fact remains that in the present case the notification was published only on 31st May, 1975, after the decree in the suit came to be passed on 28th August, 1974. How this notification affects the rights and privileges which have accrued to the lane lord prior to the taking effect of the notification is set out by Section 3 of Madras Act XVI of 1964 which reads as follows: