THE ARCHIDIOCESE OF MADRAS AND ANR. Vs. A. BATCHAMIAN SAHIB AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners instituted Ejectment Suit No. 77 of 1958, in the Court of Small Causes. The learned Judge allowed the suit in so far as D. Nos. 1 and 2, Davidson Street, are concerned. In respect of another D. No. 1/3 of the same street, the view taken was that that was a lease of the land alone in consequence of which the respondent -defendant was entitled to the protection of the City Tenants' Protection Act. It is against the dismissal of the suit with regard to D. No. 1/3 that this Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) THE principal argument advanced before me has been that whatever might have been the position previously, to which reference will shortly be made, in or about May, 1955, a new tenancy arrangement was entered into covering the entirety of D. Nos. 1 and 2 and D. No. 1/3, which apparently is only a part of that T.S. No. which forms D. No. 2. By reason of this new lease arrangement, it is claimed that this tenancy came into force not before the Act but subsequent to the Act, and that, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the protection of the Act.

(3.) RELIANCE has been placed upon Ranganathan Chetti v. Ethirajulu Naidu, (1937) M.W.N. 1315 and the decision of the Privy Council in Ranganathan Chetti v. Ethirajulu Naidu, (1940) 1 M.L.J. 24 :, L.R. 67 IndAp 25 :(1940) I.L.R. Mad. 172 (P.C.). The facts of that case were during the currency of a tenancy which would normally have expired on 1st October, 1922, the lessor and the lessee entered into another agreement for a fresh lease for ten years at an increased rent. The formal lease for that period was executed on the 1st February, 1923. That was after a date when the City Tenants' Protection Act came into force. On the lessees death, his sons became tenants and when the lessor claimed surrender of possession, the lessees claimed the benefits of the Act of 1922. Their Lordships of the Privy Council held that notwithstanding the physical continuity of possession of the land, a new tenancy had been created in September, 1922; that was after the Act came into force and was not a mere continuation of the tenancy created earlier. The principle of this decision is sought to be applied to the facts of the present case by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.