S R RAJENDAR AND OTHERS Vs. M S GOVINDIER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been posted before us under the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, as the determination of the question arising therein, namely, whether an appeal lies from an order passed by a civil court fixing a reasonable rent under the provisions of S.7-A of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, involves a consideration as to the correctness of the decision reported in Perumal Chettiar v. Kondal Chetty,1939 AIR(Mad) 430.

(2.) The respondents, the owners of a piece of vacant land measuring 250 ft. by 105 ft. in Madurai Town, granted a lease of it in the year 1942 to the petitioners at an yearly rent of Rs.100. By a subsequent agreement between the parties the rent was increased to Rs.900 per annum. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 (as amended by Act XIX of 1955), to be referred to as the Act, which conferred certain rights on the tenants of land let out for construction buildings thereon, was extended to Madurai town on and from 29-6-1955. Taking advantage of the provisions therein and alleging that the subsequently agreed rent could not be treated as a fair rent as the agreement relating to it was not a voluntary one, the tenants applied to the District Munsif, Madurai town, for fixation of a reasonable rent for the land taken on lease by them. The learned District Munsif, after considering the relevant evidence in the case, fixed rent at the rate subsequently agreed to between the parties, namely, at Rs.75 per month. Aggrieved by the decision, the tenants filed an appeal in the District Court. The learned District Judge, however, dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that it was incompetent. In so doing, he followed the decision of this court in ILR Mad 213 .

(3.) In that case Burn and Stodart JJ. held that having regard to the terms of Ss.7 and 8 of the Act no appeal would lie from an order made by a court under the former provision such order not being a "decree in a suit". The correctness of that view, which has been challenged in this civil revision petition has to be decided on a construction of the provisions of the Act.