S. C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) These appeals from the common Judgment of the Madras High Court dated June 17, 1983 in A.S. No. 529 of 1982 and S.A. No. 987 of 1983, raise the question whether the decree passed in a suit for ejectment filed by appellant No. 1 has become inexecutable and the said suit is liable to be dismissed by virtue of the provisions of Section 4(4) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The appellants are the descendents of Abdul Kader Sahib. In 1917, Abdul Kader Sahib gave a vacant plot of land on West Mas Street in Madurai Town on lease to Ramaswami Konar. The said lease permitted construction to be raised on the plot. Ramaswami Konar built a theatre on the said plot. It was earlier known as 'Chandra Talkies' and was subsequently named as 'Shanti Theatre'. On February 23, 1935 a fresh lease was granted in favour of Ramaswami Konar by Abdul Kader Sahib for a period of 11 years. After the death of Ramaswami Konar, there was partition in the family and the leasehold rights over the vacant land and the superstructure put up thereon came to the share of his son, Narayan, respondent No. 1. On March 12, 1948, respondent No. 1 sold the leasehold rights in the site as well as superstructure in favour of Bharatha Muthu Thevar, who was the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his brother Veerabhadra Thevar with an agreement to repurchase one half of leasehold rights in the site and the theatre. On November 29, 1953 Bharatha Muthu Thevar and his brother Veerabhadra Thevar reconveyed half share in the theatre and in the leasehold rights over the land to respondent No. 1. In 1954 appellant No. 1 filed a suit (O.S. No. 15 of 1954) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, against respondent No. 1 (who was impleaded as Defendant No. 1), and Bharatha Muthu Thevar, Veerabhadra Thevar, impleaded as Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and others including N. A. Ghulam Khalilullah Sahib, Defendant No. 6, for recovery of possession of the vacant site after removal of superstructure and for a mandatory injunction for removal of structure as well as for damages for use and occupation and for other reliefs. The said suit proceeded ex parte against Defendants Nos. 4 and 5. In the said suit a compromise was arrived at between appellant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and in terms of the said compromise a decree was passed on January 10, 1955 whereunder defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 agreed to deliver the possession of the suit properties after removing the superstructure on item No. 1, to the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 on or before March 12, 1958 and further agreed that if defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 fail to deliver possession as aforesaid the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 would be at liberty to take possession of the suit properties in execution of the decree after March 12, 1958 and in case, the plaintiff or defendant No. 6 has to remove the superstructure, they shall be at liberty to remove them and realise costs of such removal from defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
(3.) The Act was enacted in 1922 with a view to give protection to certain classes of tenants. Originally it was confined in its application to the city of Madras, but by Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1955, the Act was amended and its protection was extended to tenants in municipal towns to which the provisions were made applicable by the State Government by notification under sub-section (2) of Section 1. In exercise of the said powers, the act was extended to Madurai on September 12, 1955.;