TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch he sent a reply with false and frivolous allegations. In the year 1969, the respondent filed O.S.No.218 of 1969 for recovery of land. The appellant also filed O.S.No. 75 of 1970 as a counter blast for getting a fresh lease document from the respondent. On 14.12.1970, O.S. No. 218 of 1969 was compromised and O.S.No. 75 of 1970 was dismissed as not pressed. The appellant did not vacate the suit property in spite of repeated demands by the respondent, therefore, the respondent filed a fresh Suit i.e. O.S.No. 76 of 1977 for delivery of possession. On 27.7.1978, O.S. No.76 of 1977 was decreed in favour of the respondent while O.P. No. 4 of 1977 filed by the appellant for purchase of the land by her was erroneously dismissed and an order of eviction was passed against the appellant by the Court of District Munsif, Palani. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 gives the option of purchasing the site from the landlord by the tenant in case a suit for eviction is filed by the landlord where the tenant is the owner of the superstructure standing thereon and if the tenant is not interested in buying the site then the landlord can buy the superstructure or ask the tenant to remove th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered as Document No. 1908 of 1996 in the Registrar's office. Against the order in C.R.P. No. 1445 of 1988 and A.A. O. No. 767 of 1989, the respondent filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 22925 and 22926 of 1996 before this Court which were dismissed. After every thing became final with the execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the appellant and the dismissal of the S.L.Ps by this Court, the respondent filed review applications being Review Application Nos. 8 9 of 1997 in the High Court against the order dated 26.7.1997 passed by the High Court on the same grounds as were in S.L.Ps. and the same were dismissed on the ground that they were not maintainable after the dismissal of the S.L.Ps by this Court. On 7.2.1997, the appellant filed an application E.A.No. 820 of 1996 for return of the duly registered sale deed and the same was allowed. The respondent was not a party to the said E.A. and he did not make any effort to implead himself. Against the said order, the Registrar who was a party filed C.R.P. No. 1819 of 1997. In the said C.R.P., the respondent filed an application being C.M.P. No. 3005 of 1998 to implead himself which was dismissed by the High Court. The C.R.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. [Explanation The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.) A reading of the above provision makes it clear that Review is permissible (a) from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence could not be produced by the party at the time when the decree was passed; (b) on account of some mistake; (c) where error is apparent on the face of the record or is a palpable wrong; (d) any other sufficient reason. If any of the conditions satisfy, the party may apply for a review of the judgment or order of the Court which passed the decree or order. The prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to point out that when the above appeals were heard on 19.01.2006 at length, this Court after finding that it would be just and expedient to call for a finding from the trial Court as to whether the Palani Roman Catholic Mission is a 'religious institution' or 'institution of religious charity' belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion within the meaning of Section 1(f) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, as amended by Act 2 of 1996, directed the trial Court to record a finding on the said question after giving opportunity of adducing oral and documentary evidence to the parties and thereupon remit its finding to this Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Pursuant to the said direction, this Court received a report dated 09.08.1996 from the trial Court i.e. District Munsiff, Palani and the same was handed over to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. They were given an opportunity to peruse the report and submit their objection, if any. The report shows that the learned District Munsiff, after affording opportunity to both parties and after recording evidence and rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own the building, or claim compensation for the value of the building put up by them and the value of any tree planted by them. As a result of such wholesale destruction, congested parts of the city (municipal towns) would become more congested to the serious detriment of public health. In the circumstances, it was though just and reasonable that the landlords when they evict the tenants should pay for and take the buildings. There may however be cases where the landlord is unwilling to eject a tenant, if he can get a fair rent for the land. The Act provides for the payment of compensation to the tenant in case of ejectment for the value of any buildings which may have been erected by him, or his predecessor-in-interest. It also provides for the settlement of fair rent at the instance of the landlord, or tenant. Provision is also made to enable the tenant to purchase the land in his occupation, subject to certain conditions. 8) Section 9 gives the right to the tenant, who has put up a superstructure to purchase such part or extent of the land, be reasonably required for his enjoyment. Since we are concerned about the Amended Act, there is no need to go into other provisions. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the amendment was published in the Gazette on 11.1.1996 and as per sub-section (2) of Section 1, it came into force on the date of publication. In other words, from 11.1.1996 benefits conferred on the tenants under Section 9 of the Principal Act have been deleted in respect of the lands belonging to religious institution or religious charity of Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion. We have already referred to the finding of the High Court holding that the respondent herein is a Roman Catholic Mission which is a religious institution within the meaning of the amended provision. The Amended Act has given the respondent herein a valuable right of exemption from the provisions of the Principal Act. 9) It is relevant to mention here that the Amendment Act No. 2 of 1996 has been upheld by the Full Bench of the High Court in N. Sreedharan Nair vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 3 M.L.J. 616 and the said decision of the Full Bench has also been approved by this Court by dismissing C.A.Nos. 4531 of 2003 etc.etc. titled Mylapore Club vs. State of T.N. Anr. 2005 (5) CTC 494, filed against the same. 10) Both before the High Court as well as before this Court, it was contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the C.M.A. were disposed of, tenancy granted by religious institutions were still governed by the provisions of the Act. Now, by the introduction of Act 2 of 1996, they cease to apply, ergo, all proceedings instituted by the tenant shall abate. All rights and privileges that may have accrued to her cease. They come to an end and they shall not be enforceable. The jurisdiction of the Court to decide the tenants claim ceased. It is clear that on the date when the amended Act came into force, the application under Section 9 of the principal Act filed by the tenant-appellant herein was still pending. Though Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that all formalities were completed before coming into force of the amended Act, as pointed out earlier, pursuant to the order of the High Court, the sale deed was executed only on 28.10.1996 whereas the amended Act (Act No.2 of 1996) came into force on 11.1.1996 much earlier to the execution of the sale deed, hence, the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant is not acceptable and we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. As rightly concluded by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or proceeding shall stand dismissed. In the light of the language used in clause (a) i.e. conveyance to be made by the landlord to the tenant, till the proper document conveying title to the tenant it is presumed that the proceeding is kept pending. To put it clear that unless the sale deed is executed by the landlord in favour of the tenant or in the alternative by the Court on behalf of the landlord the fruits of the decree can not be realized. The suit or proceeding will come to an end immediately on execution of sale deed either by the landlord or by the Court on behalf of the landlord. In our case, as said earlier, the sale deed was executed only on 28.10.1996, however the amended Act 2/96 came into force on 11.01.1996 much earlier to the execution of sale deed. The view expressed in the Full Bench decision runs counter to the language used in the statute and we are unable to accept the same. 12) From the materials, we are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the High Court holding that the review petitioner/respondent herein is a religious Mission / institution within the meaning of amended provision and entitled to the benefits of amended Act. Further if the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
