M K RAJAGOPAL CHETTIAR Vs. RAZAK SAHIB ALIAS ABDUR RAZACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a landlord who filed four suits for ejecting four tenants from huts built on a piece of vacant land in Washer, manpet. THE tenants pleaded that they were entitled to protection under City Tenants Protection Act within one mouth of service of notice of the suit, filed petitions under Section 9, City Tenants Protection Act for an order that the landlord be directed to sell the laud to them for a price to be fixed by the Court in accordance with that section. THE suits were dismissed as three months notice was not given under Section 11 of the Act upholding the contentions of the tenants that they were entitled to protection. At the time the suits were dismissed, the petitions of the tenants under Section 9 were pending. It was contended on behalf of the landlord that these petitions should have been merely dismissed as no order for ejectment had in fact been passed. THE Registrar of the Small Causes Court has rightly in my opinion repelled this contention and held that notwithstanding the dismissal of the ejectment suits these petitions under Section 9 should be enquired into and disposed of. Only one revision petition has been filed by the landlord against one tenant, apprently as a sort of test case.

(2.) THE same argument which failed to prevail with the lower Court is advanced before me, namely, that on a construction of Section 3 of the Act read with Section 9, a tenant is only entitled to compensation on ejectment and that no decree for ejectment having been passed, the tenants' petitions under Section 9 do not legally arise for determination. According to Section 8 every tenant shall on ejectment be entitled to be paid as compensation, the value of any building which might have been erected by him etc. Section 9 (1) is as follows: