R. S. Pathak, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated March 30, 1971 of the Madras High Court dismissing a revision petition arising out of proceedings under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921.
(2.) Almost fifty years ago, on September 19, 1934, the respondent and his mother granted a lease in favour of one Abhirama Chettiar in respect of 50 cents of open land in Coimbatore for a period of twenty years on an annual rent of Rs. 1080/- for the construction of a building suitable for use as a theatre Abhirama Chettiar constructed a theatre on the site. Subsequently, on July 14, 1937 Abhirama Chiettiar assigned his rights to the appellant. The appellant attorned to the respondent and was accepted as a tenant. In March, 1964, the respondent served notice upon the appellant calling upon it to vacate the property and surrender vacant possession of the site. The appellant refused to do so, and set up an oral agreement entitling it to an extension of the lease for a further period of twenty years. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for its ejectment. Shortly thereafter, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to extend the lease. On January 16,1957 the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, decreed the respondent's suit for possession with mesne profits and dismissed the appellant's suit. The appellant appealed to the High Court against the two decrees. During the pendency of the appeals the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 was extended to the town of Coimbatore with effect from February 19, 1958. The appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1835 of 1958 in the appeal arising out of the suit for ejectment and prayed for directions under S. 9 of the Act for the sale of the site to it. The application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that Section 9 of was void. On July 28, 1958 Panchapakesa Iyer, J. passed the following order: "I declare that the petitioner is entitled to purchase the site concerned in the petition under Section 9 of the Act, but on paying the full market value current today as freely undertaken by himself. The lower Court will appoint a suitable experienced commissioner to fix the value of the site based on the market value prevalent this day (28th July 1958). The Commissioner's fees will be paid by (sic) the commissioner who will be paid by (sic) the commissioner who will bear it himself. In this petition all the parties will bear thier own costs. As soon as this order becomes final the petitioner will withdrawn A. S. Nos. 100 of 1957 and 255 of 1957 on the file of this Court, as infructuous as undertaken by him, and they will then be dismissed without costs." The petition was remitted by the learned Judge to the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore for appointing a Commissioner to fix the market value of the site. Against that orders the respondent preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed. The respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court. By its judgment dated March 4, 1964, reported as N. Vajrapani Naidu v. New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd., Coimbatore, AIR 1964 SC 1440) the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of Panchapakesa Iyer, J. and dismissed the appeal.
(3.) Now during the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act was amended by Madras Act No. XIII of 1960 published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated July 27, 1960. Upon that, the respondent filed two petitions in the High Court, C. M. P. No. 7241 of 1960 praying for the review and modification of the order dated July 28, 1958 in the light of the amended Section 9, and C. M. P No. 7241 of 1960 praying for stay of the enquiry directed by that order. On April 1, 1964, upon the dismissal of the respondent's appeal in this Court, the High Court dismissed the appeals against the decrees passed by Panchapakesa Iyer, J. as withdrawn. The High Court also transferred the C. M. P. Nos. 7241 and 7242 of 1960 to the trial Court for consideration, and directed the trial Court to fix the market value and pass final orders in C. M. P No. 1835 of 1958. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the amended Section 9 of the Act, and directed the Commissioner to determine the minimum extent of land necessary for convenient enjoyment by the appellant and to take steps for fixing the price thereof on the basis of the average market value of the three years immediately preceding the date of its order. C. M. P. No. 7242 of 1960 was dismissed as superfluous. Against the order of the trial Court the appellant filed an appeal in the Court of the learned First Additional Judge, Coimbatore. The appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1883 of 1968 in the High Court, and on March 30, 1971 the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition. The High Court affirmed that the case was governed by the amended Section 9 of the Act, and rejected the contention of the appellant that C. M. P No. 7241 of 1960 was not competent in the High Court as the order dated July 28, 195 8 by Panchapakesa Iyer, J. had been confirmed by the Supreme Court in appeal.;