- (1.) The question involved in this case is whether a suit for ejectment filed in respect of any non-residential building or part thereof pending before any court on the date on which the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act No. XVIII of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act') was amended by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment Act, 1964 (Act No. XI of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act') could have been proceeded with after that date. It arises in the following circumstances : Haji Mohamed Hussain Sait, the father of the plaintiff, Haji Abdulla Sait was the owner of a building situated in the city of Madras. He leased it out in favour of the defendant, K. Seetharama Rao under a lease deed dated July 8, 1940 for the purpose of running a restaurant known as 'Modern Cafe' in it for a period of three years with effect from July 15, 1940 on a monthly rent of Rs.950. The agreed period of lease expired in July, 1943 but the defendant continued to be in possession of the building as a tenant holding over. On the coming into force of the Madras Non-residential Buildings Rent Control Order in 1946, the defendant became a statutory tenant of the said building and fair rent in respect of it was fixed under that Order in the year 1946 at Rs.1,680 per month. The aforesaid Order was replaced by the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 which was also applicable to the said building. On the death of the landlord Haji Mohamed Hussain Sait in 1955, under a partition amongst his heirs the plaintiff became the owner of the building. The protection which the defendant was enjoying under the Act of 1949 came to an end on the passing of the principal Act by virtue of Section 35 thereof which repealed the Act of 1949 and S. 30 (iii) thereof which provided that nothing contained in the principal Act was applicable to any non-residential building, the rental value of which on the date of the commencement of the principal Act as entered in the property tax assessment book of the municipal council, district board, panchayat or panchayat union council or the Corporation of Madras exceeded Rs.400 per mensem. The dependent, however, continued to be in possession of the building by paying the rent every month. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy with effect from the expiry of February 29, 2964 and as the building was not governed by the principal Act at that point of time, he instituted a suit in Civil Suit No. 730 of 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras on March 2, 1964 for eviction and for damages at the rate of Rs.6,000 per month. The defendant filed his written statement on May 2, 1964 before the City Civil Court. On June 10, 1964, the Amending Act came into force. The relevant part of it is reproduced below :- "2. Amendment of Section 30, Madras Act XVIII of 1960. In Section 30 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act). (i) in clause (ii) the word "or" occurring at the end shall be omitted; (ii) clause (iii) shall be omitted; (iii) in the Explanation, for the words, brackets and figures "clauses (ii) and (iii)", the word, brackets and figures "clause (ii)" shall be substituted. 3. Certain pending proceedings to abate - Every proceeding in respect of any non-residential building or part thereof pending before any court or other authority or officer on the date of the publication of this Act in the Fort St. George Gazette and instituted on the ground that such building or part was exempt from the provisions of the principal Act by virtue of clause (iii) of Section 30 of the principal Act, shall abate in so far as the proceeding relates to such building or part. All rights and privileges which may have accrued before such date to any landlord in respect of any non-residential building or part thereof by virtue of clause (iii) of Section 30 of the principal Act, shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceeding in which the decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the date mentioned in this section."
(2.) The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill which ultimately become the Amending Act read as follows :- "The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Madras Act 18 of 1960), relates to the regulation of the letting of residential and non-residential buildings and the control of rents of such buildings and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Madras. Under section 30 of the said Act, certain buildings are exempted from the provisions of the said Act. Any non-residential building or part thereof occupied by any one tenant if the monthly rent paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeds four hundred rupees in one such building or part is exempted under the said Sec. 30. It has been brought to the notice of the Government that the landlords of such non-residential buildings, taking advance age of the exemption referred to above demand exorbitant rents from the tenants of such buildings, who mostly belong to the business community, and threaten to evict the tenants when the latter do not concede to the demands for such rents. In order to provide relief to such tenants and to ensure that the interests of trade and industries do not suffer by demands of landlords for unreasonable and exorbitant rents, the Government consider that the exemption now available to any non-residential building or part thereof fetching a monthly rent exceeding four hundred rupees should be withdrawn. At the same time, the Government consider that there is no need to take away the exemption available at present to any residential building or part thereof fetching a monthly rent exceeding Rs.250. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."
(3.) The result of the amendment was that the buildings which had been exempted from the operation of the principal Act under clause (iii) of S.30 came within the scope of the principal Act and the relationship between landlords and tenants of such buildings was to be regulated thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act. Apparently in order to give protection to tenants of such buildings against whom proceedings for eviction had been instituted in civil courts, Section 3 of the Amending Act provided that such proceedings should be treated as having abated. The proviso to Section 3 of the Amending Act however provided that nothing contained is that section should be deemed to invalidable any suit or proceeding in which the decree or order passed had been executed or satisfied in full before the date mentioned in that section, the said date being, June 10, 1964. Thus by necessary implication, Section 3 of the Amending Act was applicable even to the case of a building in respect of which a decree for eviction had been passed but had not been executed or satisfied in full before June 10, 1964. In view of the above provision, the City Civil Court dismissed the suit as having abated by its order dated December 4, 1964. The plaintiff filed two applications before the City Civil Court in March, 1965 - one under O.9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order dated December 4, 1964 dismissing the suit as having abated and another under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also filed an appeal in A.S. No. 266 of 1965 on the file of the High Court of Madras against the order of the City Civil Court dated December 4, 1964. Both the above applications were allowed by the City Civil Court on August 3, 1965. On August 13, 1965, the defendant filed an additional written statement before the City Civil Court raising the plea that the suit had actually abated by virtue of Sec. 3 of the Amending Act. He also filed two revision petitions against the order passed by the City Civil Court allowing the two applications on August 3, 1965. In the meanwhile, on an application made under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff, the suit was withdrawn to the file of the High Court and it was renumbered as C. S. No. 218 of 1965. It should be mentioned here that owing to the alteration of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the suit stood transferred to the file of the High Court on May 1, 1964 itself. The defendant died on January 15, 1968. He had made a will on January 7, 1968 appointing executors and administrators in respect of his assets and issuing directions regarding the manner in which his assets should be disposed of. By an order dated July 20, 1970 made by the High Court, the defendants Nos. 2 to 10 who had been appointed executors and administrators were impleaded as legal representatives of the defendant (who was shown as defendant No.1 thereafter). The two civil revision petitions filed by the defendant against the orders passed on August 3, 1965 by the City Civil Court and the Appeal Suit No. 266 of 1965 filed by the plaintiff against the order of the City Civil Court dated December 4, 1964 were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras by a common order on June 28, 1972, the relevant part of which read as follows :- "It is seen from the foregoing dates that at the time of the dismissal of the suit, the lower court had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit and in that view the counsel appearing on both sides represent that the order dismissing the suit as having abated may be set aside and the suit may be tried on the original side of this court. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal of the suit on the ground that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the same on the date of dismissal and direct the suit to be posted on the original side for being dealt with.";