- (1.) The suit out of which these proceedings arise is one for ejectment of a tenant of the plaintiff. It is not necessary to set out all the facts in view of the position that the tenancy is now an admitted one. The only question that is raised in the proceedings is whether the tenant is entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants' Protection Act.
(2.) Prior to the filing of this suit, the plaintiff filed a suit, O.S. 1017 of 1973 for recovery of possession against the same tenant. That suit was decreed by the District Munsif's Court, Thanjavur, but when the appeal was pending in the Sub Court, the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act was extended to the area in which the property is situated. On such extension of the Act, the appellate Court took the view that the suit was not maintainable because of the absence of a notice under Sec.11 of the Act. The landlord was directed to issue a notice and take fresh proceedings for eviction and the appeal by the tenant was allowed on such directions.
(3.) Consequently, the present suit came to be filed after issue of a notice by the landlord. In this suit the tenant claimed the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The trial Court negatived his claim on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court in SUNDARASWARAR DEVASTANAM v. MARIMUTHU, I.L.R. 1963 Mad. 1064: 76 L.W. 381: A.I.R. 1963 Mad. 369 (D.B.), had decided that in the case of trust properties, there could not be any order under Sec.9 of the Act unless there was a necessity for the sale or benefit to the trust. In that view, the trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but directed an enquiry into the value of the superstructure for the purpose of the plaintiff paying compensation to the tenant under Sec.3 of the Act.;