P.T. SRINIVASAN Vs. SRI MALLEESWARAR DEVASTHANAM BY TRUSTEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for ejectment filed by the trustees of Sri Malleswarar Devasthanam, the respondents herein, the defendant, viz., the appellant in this appeal, contended that he was entitled to the benefits conferred by the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 and in accordance with such plea, he filed a petition, I.A. No. 16074 of 1967 under Section 9(1) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent conceded the claim of the appellant and made an endorsement to that effect on 13th December, 1969. Thereafter, the learned IVth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court who dealt with the petition appointed a Commissioner to inspect the property in the occupation of the appellant and give a report about the probable value of the property. After making a local inspection and after taking into consideration the documents filed by the respondents the Commissioner gave his report, Exhibit G -1, stating therein that the total extent of two grounds and 2,127 square feet which has to be conveyed to the appellant can be so done at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per ground. It may be mentioned even at this juncture that the appellant who now contends that the valuation of the property at Rs. 12,000 per ground by the Commissioner is excessive, did not file any document before the Commissioner in support of his contention that the site was not worth Rs. 12,000 per ground but was worth much less. After independently considering the documents furnished by the respondents and the report of the Commissioner, the learned IVth Assistant Judge accepted the valuation given by the Commissioner and called upon the appellant on to deposit a sum of Rs. 34,635 within a period of one year towards the value of the site. It is as against that order, the tenant has come forward with this appeal.

(2.) MR . K. Shanmugham, learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the Commissioner as well as the lower Court have committed an error in taking into consideration several documents which were outside the period set under the Act for computation of the value of the property and as such the fixation of the value of the site in the occupation of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per ground is unsustainable. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel the dates of the several documents which have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner and the learned IVth Assistant Judge have got to be mentioned. Exhibit A -1, dated 3rd April, 1968 is a registration copy of a sale deed which discloses sale of a site situate in Prasanna Vinayagar Koil Street, Mylapore, a locality within a distance of two furlongs from the land in question at the rate of Rs. 12,270 per ground. Exhibit A -2, dated 11th September, 1970 is the registration copy of sale deed disclosing a sale of vacant site in a locality close by to the site in question at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per ground. Exhibit A -3, dated 12th December, 1966 is a notice issued under the Madras Urban Land Tax Act fixing the site value in that locality at Rs. 10,000 per ground. Exhibit A -4, dated 1st August, 1970 is an order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments fixing the value of sites in the locality in question at Rs. 15,000 per ground. Exhibits A -5 and A -7 of the year 1967 respectively are notices issued under the Madras Urban Land Tax Act and Exhibit A. -6 is an order of the Assistant Commissioner of the year 1966. In general, it may be stated that the notices issued under the Urban Land Tax Act as well as the order passed under the same Act, have also been relied upon by the Commissioner to fix the value of the site in question at Rs. 12,000 per ground.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the relevant - sections in the Act, which will have a bearing upon the dispute on hand, it is necessary to set out certain facts. The objection now raised in the appeal as regards the period with reference to which the Commissioner should have evaluated the property was not raised before the lower Court by way of objections to the Commissioner's report. On the other hand, what has been urged before the lower Court was that the Commissioner had failed to fix the value of the land with reference to the average value of the transactions which took place in that locality. Before the lower Court also, this objection has not been placed as no reference is made by the trial Judge to any such objection raised by the tenant. As a matter of fact, even in the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal, the objection has not been taken by the appellant. In spite of these things, I gave opportunity to the learned Counsel for the appellant to raise this objection as he pleaded that it was one of law and therefore required consideration by this Court.