Holding

Section 9 confers a non‑absolute privilege that is available only to tenants in occupation who require the land for convenient enjoyment; therefore the appellants were not entitled to its benefit.

Summary

The appellants, heirs and a receiver of a leasehold property in Madras, sought to invoke Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 to compel the landlords to sell the demised land to them after an ejectment suit was filed. The lease, originally granted in 1924, had been abandoned in 1964 and the building was occupied by sub‑tenants; the appellants themselves were not in actual possession or using the land for their own business. The trial court, appellate court and High Court rejected the application on the ground that the statutory privilege under Section 9 is available only to tenants who are in occupation and require the land for convenient enjoyment. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, holding that the right is equitable, not absolute, and cannot be claimed by persons who do not occupy the premises. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 to tenants who are not in actual occupation of the demised land or superstructures.
Whether a co‑owner/receiver can file an application under Section 9 on behalf of other co‑owners.

Legislation cited

Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882s. 41
Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921s. 2, s. 3, s. 4, s. 9, s. 9A
Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Subjects

TenancyRight to purchase landSection 9OccupationEjectmentSuperstructuresCo‑ownershipReceiverEquitable reliefLandlord‑tenant law

Judgment

A P. ANANTHAKRISHNAN NAIR & ANR.
v.
DR. G. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.
y
MARCH 31, 1987 '
B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921: ss. 2, 3, 4 and
9~ Tenants right to purchase demised land-Nature of-Superstruc- '
tures constructed thereon in occupation of sub-tenants-Whether tenants t--

-
entitled to the statutory benefit.
c ~.
Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921
provides that every tenant shall on ejectment he entitled to he paid
compensation for the value of building which may have been erected by
him. Section 9 of the Act, provides that a tenant who is entitled to )..._
compensation under s. 3 and against whom a suit for ejectment is
D instituted may apply for an order that the landlord may be directed to
sell the land to him for the price to be fixed by the court.

The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had obtained a lease
of vacant land in the city of Madras from the ancestors of the res-
pondent-landlords in 1924 and constructed superstructures thereon for
E carrying on business. The business was, however, discontinued in 1964. ~
A partition suit was filed and the first appellant was appointed receiver.
Before a final decree could be passed in that suit, the respondent-
landlords served notices on the heirs of the original tenant terminating
the lease and later filed ejectment suits against them. Only defendant
No. 4 (2nd appellant) and defendant No. 11, advocate receiver (1st '
F appellant) contested the ejectment suits. Ex-parte proceedings were -{
taken against the other defendants. Defendant No. 4 filed an application
in each of the ejectment suits claiming the benefit of s. 9 of the Act, with ¥'.
a prayer to the court for directing the landlords to sell the land to the
defendants and to appoint a commissioner to ascertain the price.
G The Trial Court rejected the application on the findings that the
defendants were not in occupation of the property, for they had let out
the entire building to sub-tenants except a small portion thereof where
the account books were kept, and that the defendants did not require ~·
any portion of the land for running their business or for the convenient
enjoyment of the superstructures.
H

734
P.A. NAIR v. G. RAMAKRISHNAN 735

On appeal by defendants 4 and 11 under s. 9A of the Act, the A
appellate authority held that as the defendants had not been in posses-
sion and occupation of the premises, they were not entitled to the be-
nefit of s. 9.

The High Court affirmed the findings of the courts below and
dismissed the revision petitions preferred hy the appellants. B

---\ Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

-~ HELD: Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act,
1921 confers a privilege on a tenant, against whom a suit for ejectmeut
bas been filed by the landlord to exercise an option to secure conveyance c
of only such portion of the demised land as would be necessary for bis
convenient enjoyment. It creates a statutory right to purchase land
through the medium of the court on fulfilment of the conditions speci-
fied therein. It is not an absolute right, as the court has discretion to
grant or refuse the relief for purchase of the land on the facts of a
particular case. [743G-H] D

S.M. · Transport (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamingal Mutt, [1963]
Suppl. 1 SCR 282, referred to.

The policy underlying s. 9 is directed to safeguard the eviction of

- those tenants who may have constructed superstructures on the E
demised land so that they may continue to occupy the same for the
purpose of their residence or business. The section contemplates that
the tenant requires the laud for the convenient enjoyment of the prop-
erty. Whenever an application is made by tenant before the Court for
issuance of direction to the landlord for the sale of the whole or part of F
the land to him the Court is under a mandatory duty to determine the
minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for the convenient
enjoyment by the tenant. For this determination the Court must hold an
enquiry having regard to the area of the demised land and the extent of
superstructure standing thereon and the tenant's need for the said land.
That inquiry pre-supposes that the tenant making the application has G
been in occupation of the land and the super-structure wherein he may
be either residing or carrying on business and on his eviction he would
be adversely affected. The court has to consider the need of the tenant
and if it finds that the tenant does not require any part of the land it
may reject the application and direct eviction of the tenant. In that
event, the landlord has to pay compensation to the tenant for the super-
H
structure. [744G·H; 74SA-B]
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A In the instant case, the findings recorded by the conrts below
clearly show that none of the defendants have been in occupation of the
land or the superstructures standing thereon and they have not been
carrying on any business therein. The land in dispute and the super-
structure have been in occupation of the sub-tenants since 1964. Thus,
the tenants could not be said to require the land for their convenient
B enjoyment. Having regard to these findings and the nature of the ten-
ants' right to purchase land under s. 9 it would be inequitable to direct
the landlords to sell the land to the tenants. [745E-G]

The price of land, specifically in the urban areas, has escalated to
a great extent and it would not be fair to deprive the landlords of their pro-
C perty and to allow the tenants to enrich at the landlord's expense. [745G-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 387-
390 of 1977.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.1976 of the Madras
D High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1288 to 1291of1975.

T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, A.T.M. Sampath and Tbirumaran for
the Appellants.

G.L. Sanghi, P.S. Poti, A.V. Rangam, M.G. Natarajan and
E T.V. Ratnam for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-
SINGH, J. These four appeals are directed against the common
judgment of the High Court of Madras dismissing four Civil Revision
F Petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the appeal court
upholding the order of the Trial Court dismissing their applications
made under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act
1921.

Briefly the facts giving rise to these appeals are: N.V. Abdullah
G Sahib predecessor-in-interest of the appellants obtained a lease of
·~·
about IO grounds of vacant land situate in the city of Madras from the
ancestors of Respondent-landlords in 1924, for carrying on business,
he constructed super-structures on the vacant land and carried on
business in timber under a partnership firm along with his brother
N. V. Ummer Ku tty and two minors. The super-structures which were
H constructed prior to 1954 on the demised Janel were treated partner-
P.A. NAIR v. G. RAMAKR!SHNAN [SINGH. J. J 737

ship assets along with other properties. After the death of N.V.
--( Abdullah Sahib and N.V. Ummer Kutty the partnership business
A
could not be carried on, as dispute arose between the partners. A suit
being Civil Suit No. 152 of 1960 was filed for partition and in that suit
defendant Nos. 2 and 4 were appointed joint receivers, subsequently
on 7.9.1966 Sri Ananthakrishnan Nair, Appellant No. 1 was appointed
Receiver who was authorised to take custody of the account books and B

·-\ to realise rent from the sub-tenants occupying the property which was
the subject matter of dispute in the partition suit. The High Court

- ~·
passed a preliminary decree in the partition suit but before final decree
could be prepared or finalised, the Respondent-landlords served
notices on the heirs of N. V. Abdullah Sahib terminating the lease and
demanding surrender of the land. Since the land was not restored to
the landlords inspite of termination of the lease, the landlords, in 1972
c
~ instituted four suits being Suit Numbers 33 to 36 in the Court of Small
Causes at Madras for ejectment against the heirs of N.V. Abdullah
Sahib, which included defendant Nos. 1to10 and Sri P. Ananthakrish-
nan Nair, Advocate receiver as defendant No. 11. In the ejectment
suits defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 did not appear or contest the D
suit, and ex-parte proceedings were taken against them but K.K.
Kunhammoo, defendant No. 4 (second appellant) and Sri P. Anantha-
krishnan Nair, Advocate-receiver defendant No. 11 contested the
,~- ejectment suits. Defendant No. 4, namely, appellant No. 2, filed an
\
application in each of the ejectment suits claiming benefit of Section 9
~
of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act III of 1922 (hereinafter E
referred to as the Act) with a prayer to the Court for issuing orders
directing the landlords to sell the land, to the defendants and to

~
appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the price which the defendants
would pay. The Respondent-landlords contested the applications. The

~
Trial Court rejected the application on the findings that the defendants
were not in occnpation of the property except a small portion where F
the account books were kept and the defendants did not require any
portion of the land for running their ·business or for the convenient
enjoyment of the super-structures. On appeal by the defendant Nos. 4
and 11 under section 9-A of the Act, the appellate authority held that
proceedings for ejectment had been taken ex-parte against most of the
defendants and persons entitled to the statutory privilege did not exer- G
---{ cise their right and further they have not been in possession and occu-
' pation of the premises therefore, defendants were not entitled to the
benefit of Section 9 of the Act. The appellate court further held that
defendant No. 4 (the receiver) was not entitled to maintain an applica-
lion under Section 9 of the Act on behalf of other defendants. There-
after both the receivers, defendant Nos. 4 and 11 preferred four H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R.

A petitions in revision before the High Court. A learned single Judge by '-y
his order dated 30.7.1976 affirmed the orders of the Courts below and
dismissed the revision petitions. Aggrieved defendant No. 4 and
P. Ananthakrishnan Nair, Advocate-receiver have preferred these
appeals against the order of the High Court after obtaining Special
Leave.
B
In the instant case the appellants' application was rejected firstly
on the ground that the application made under Section 9 of the Act
had not been signed by all the tenants against whom suit for ejectment
had been filed by the respondent-landlords. Secondly all the three
courts ejected the appellants' application on the findings that the
-~. -
defendants have not been in possession or occupation of the super-
c structure and they have let out the entire building to sub-tenants,
thereby they are not entitled to claim benefit of Section 9 of the Act.
As regards the first question the learned counsel for the appellants
urged that the application made under Section 9 of the Act was signed
by the second Appellant who was defendant No. 4 in the suit. The suit
D for partition of the property had not been finally decreed and as no
final decree had been passed the shares of the defendants had not been
partitioned by metes and bounds the property continued to retain its
joint status and defendant No. 4 being a co-owner could legally make
application on behalf of other co-owners claiming the benefit of Sec-
tion 9 of the Act. Since there was no conflict of interest among the
E co-owners, defendant No. 4 being a co-owner could maintain the
application not only on his own benefit but also on behalf of all other
co-owners as the right of each co-owner extends to every inch of the
-
whole property alongwith the other co-owners. It is always open to a
co-owner to conserve the property for the benefit of all other co-
owners. The preliminary decree passed in the partition suit did not
F affect the joint inter~st of the co-owners as no final decree had been
passed in the suit and the property under tenancy continued to be
joint. Learned counsel further urged that defendant No. 4 being a
party-receiver in the partition suit was entitled to do everything for the
conservation and protection of the property for the benefit of the
parties to the suit. The court below committed error in rejecting the
G application on the plea that the same had been signed only by
defendant No. 4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlords
urged that the application made by only one of the co-heirs of the
deceased N.V. Addullah Sahib, the original tenant, could not be cons-
H trued as one made on behalf of other co-heirs, as they did not contest
P.A. NAIR v. G. RAMAKRISHNAN [SINGH, J.J 739

the ejectment suit and ex-parte decree for their eviction had been A
passed by the trial court which clearly indicate that they were not
interested in retaining the property or in continuing possession of the
same. Since all the other heirs of N.V. Abdulla Sahib were not in-
terested to contest the suit, defendant No. 4 (Appellant No. 2) could
not maintain application under Section 9 of the Act on behalf of other
co-heirs and the application made by him did not and could not reflect B
the desire of other co-heirs who had settled outside the State of Tamil
Nadu. The learned counsel further urged that defendant No. 4 though
functioning as party-receiver was not authorised to take legal proceed-
-~ ings by filing suit or application on behalf of parties to the partition
suit. In the absence of authorisation by the court the defendant. No. 4
had no authority in law to act as agent of other co-heirs. It was further C
urged that the receiver is an officer of the Court and he is not agent of
any party to the suit notwithstanding the fact that in law his position is
ultimately treated as an agent of the successful party on the termina-
tion of the suit.

We do not consider it necessary to express our opinion on these D
rival submissions made before us as in our opinion the appeals must
fail on the second question which relates to the findings recorded by all
the three courts that since the tenants have not been in occupation of
the property in dispute, they are not entitled to the benefit of Section 9
which is equitable in nature.
E
The Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 was enacted,
as its preamble shows, to give protection to certain classes of tenants in
municipal towns and adjoining areas in the State of Madras, who may
have constructed buildings on others' lands in the hope that they
would not be evicted so long as they paid a fair rent for the land. The
object of the Act as contained in the objects and reasons of the bill F
state:

"In many parts of the City of Madras dwelling houses and
other buildings have from time to time been erected by
tenants on lands belonging to others, in the full expectation
that subject to payment of a fair ground rent, they would be G
left in undisturbed possession, notwithstanding the absence
of any specific contract as to the duration of the lease or the
terms on which the buildings were to be leased. Recently
attempts made or steps taken to evict a large number of
such tenants have shown that such expectations are likely
to be defeated. The tenants, if they are evicted, can at the H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

best remove the super-structure which can only be done by
A
pulling down the buildings. As a result of such wholesale )- ...
destruction, congested parts of the city will become more
congested to the serious deteriment of public health. In
these circumstances it is just and reasonable that the land-
lords when they evict the tenants should pay for and take
B the buildings. There may however be cases where the land-
lord is unwilling to eject a tenant, if he can get a fair rent
for the land. The Act provides for the payment of compen- ~
sation to the tenant in case of ejectment for the value of
any buildings which may have been erected by him or his
predecessors in interest. It also provides for the settlement
~ -
of fair rent at the instance of the landlord or tenant provi-
c sion is also made to enable the ienant to purchase the land
in his occupation subject to certain conditions." A..
The Act has been subject to several amendments seeking to pro-
tect the tenants' interest and also safeguarding landlord$' rights in the' "
D property. It would be profitable to refer to the provisions of the Act
highlighting broad aspects of the benefits to a tenant and the rights of
the landlords which have been safeguarded. The Principal Act was
amended by the Act XIX of 1955 and Xlll of 1960 which made
comprehensive amendments in the Principal Act of 1921 (Act III of ·f.
1922). The Principal Act was further amended by Act IV of 1972 and
E XXIV of 1973. "Landlord" as defined by Section 2(3) means any
person owing any land including every person entitled to collect the
rent of the whole or any portion of the land whether on his own
account or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person, or by
virtue of any transfer from the owner or his predecessor-in-title or of -{
any order of a competent court or of any provision of law. "Tenant" as ,.,\(-.&
F defined by Section 2(4) means a person liable to pay rent in respect of
such land under a tenancy agreement express or implied and it also
includes any person who continues in possession of the land after
determination of the tenancy agreement. Section 3 provides that every
tenant shall on ejectment be entitled to he paid as compensation the
value of any building, which may have been erected by him and also
G the value of trees which may have been planted by him in a suit for
ejectment. If the landlord's suit for ejectment is decreed the court is ).--
required to ascertain the amount of compensation payable under Sec-
tion 3 and it shall thereupon pass a decree for the amount so found due
and direct that on payment of the amount by the landlord within three
months from the date of decree the tenant shall put the landlord into
H possession of the land along with the building and trees thereon, as
P.A. NAIR v. G. RAMAKRISHNAN {SINGH, J.] 741

provided by Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 provides for determination
A
of compensation to the tenant. If the landlord is unable or unwilling to
pay compensation as directed by the Court he may apply to the Court
for fixation of reasonable rent for the occupation of the land by a
tenant in accordance with Section 6 of the Act. Section 9 provides that
a tenant who is entitled to compensation under Section 3 and against
whom a suit for ejectment is instituted may apply for an order that the B
~I landlord may be directed to sell the land to him for the price to be fixed
by the Court, and thereupon the Court shall fix the price in the manner
prescribed therein and direct the said amount to be paid to the land-
lord by the tenant within a particular time and in default, his applica-
tion shall stand dismissed. Section 11 provides that no suit for eject-
ment shall be instituted against the tenant except after giving three
months notice requiring him to surrender possession of the land, build-
c
ing and trees to the landlord. These provisions broadly seek to re-
capitulate the objects and reasons as quoted earlier by protecting the
tenant from eviction who may have constructed super-structure on the
land demised to him and it further safeguards the landlord's interest by
making provision for payment of the price of the land to him by the D
tenant.

, In the instant case since the tenant's right to purchase the land is
involved we would refer to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act in
detail, which reads as under:
E
"9. Application to Court for Directing the Landlord to Sell
Land: (1) (a) (i) Any tenant who is entitled to compensa-
tion under section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment
has been instituted or proceeding under section 41 of the
Presidency Small Causes Courts Act 1882, taken by the
landlord may, with.in one month of the date of the publica- F
tion of the Madras City Tenant's Protection (Amendment)
Act 1979 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette or of the
date with effect from which this Act is extended to the
municipal town, township or Village in which the land is
situate or within one month after the service on him of
summons, apply to the Court for an order that the landlord G
shall be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the Court,
the whole or part of extent of land specified in the
application.

(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a)
(i) of this sub-section, any such tenant as is referred to in H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

sub-clause (ii) (b) of clause (4) of Section 2 or his heirs,
A
may within a period of two months from the date of the
publication of the Madras City Tenants' Protection
(Amendment) Act 1973 apply to the Court (whether or not
a suit for ejectment has been instituted or proceeding
under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts
B Act 1882 (Central Act XV of 1882) has been taken by the
landlord or whether or not such suit or proceeding is pend- f-
ing having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment or
in the City of Madras either to such court or to the Presi-
dency Small Causes Court for an order that the landlord ~,-
under the tenancy agreement shall be directed to sell for a
price to be fixed by the Court the whole or part of the
c extent of land specified in the application.

(b) On such application the Court shall first decide the
minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for the
convenient enjoyment by the tenant. The Court shall, then
D fix the price on the minimum extent of the land decided as
' aforesaid or of the extent of the land specified in the appli-
cation under clause (a) whichever is less. The price afore-
said shall be the average market value of the three years
immediately preceding the date of the order. The Court
shall order that within a period to be determined by the
E Court not being less than three months and not more than
three years from the date of the order of the tenant shall
pay into Court or otherwise as directed the price so fixed in
-
one or more instalments with or without interest.

(2) In default of payment by the tenant of any one instal-
F ment, the application under clause (a) of sub-section (1)
shall stand dismissed, provided that on sufficient cause be-
ing shown, the Court may excuse the delay and pass such
orders as it may think fit, but not so as to extend the time
for payment beyond the three years above mentioned. On
the application being dismissed, the Court shall order the
G amount of the instalment or instalments if any, paid by the
tenant to be repaid to him without any interest.

(3) (a) On payment of the price fixed under clause (b) of
sub-section (1), the Court shall pass an order directing the
conveyance by the landlord to the tenant of the extent of
H land for which the said price was fixed. The Court shall by
P.A. NAIR v. G. RAMAKRISHNAN [SINGH. J.[ 743

the same order direct the tenant to put the landlord into
A
possession of the remaining extent of the land, if any. The
stamp duty and registration fee in respect of such conve-
yance shall be borne by the tenant.

(b) On the order referred to in clause (a) being made the
suit or proceeding shall stand dismissed, and any decree or B
order in ejectment that may have been passed therein but
which has not been executed shall be vacated.

•- Once a suit is filed by the landlord for the eviction of a tenant
from land the tenant has right to apply to the Court within one month
from the date of the service of summons for the issuance of order
directing the landlord to sell the whole or part of the extent of land as
c
..J_ specified in the application to him for a price to be fixed by the Court.
On making of such an application the Court is under a mandatory duty
to first decide the minimum extent of the land "which may be neces-
sary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant." (emphasised). The
court must hold enquiry to determine whether the tenant requires the D
land for his convenient enjoyment, and if so, what area or portion of
the land would be necessary for his convenient enjoyment. The·court
may on the facts of a particular case come to .:1e conclusion that the
. . tenant does not require any portion of the land and i.1 that event it may
reject the application and decree the suit for ejectment and direct the
landlord to pay compensation to the tenant. But if the court finds that E
the tenant needs the whole or any portion of the demised land for
"convenient enjoyment", the Court has to fix the price of the land on
' the basis of market value of three years immediately preceding the
)·date of the order. The Court may thereupon direct the·tenant to
.... deposit the amount so determined within a specific period not being
)". less than three months and not more than three years. If the tenant F
fails to pay the amount so determined, the tenant's application shall
stand dismissed.

Section 9 confers a privilege on a tenant against whom a suit for
eviction has been filed by the landlord but that privilege is not abso-
lute. Section 9 itself imposes restriction on the tenant's right to secure G
conveyance of only such portion of the holding as would be necessary
for his convenient enjoyment. It creates a statutory right to purchase
land through the medium of court on the fulfilment of conditions
specified in Section 9 of the Act. It is not an absolute right, as the court
has discretion to grant or refuse the relief for the purchase of the land.
In S.M. Transport (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamingal Mutt, [1963] Suppl I H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A SCR 282 this Court considered the question whether the right of a •
tenant to apply to a court for an order directing the landlord to sell the Y
land to him for a price to be fixed by it under Section 9 of the Act is a
property right. The Court held, that the law of India does not recog-
nise equitable estates, a statutory right to pu"rchase land does not
confer any right or interest in the property. The right conferred by
B Section 9 is a statutory right to purchase land and it does not create any
interest or right to the property. The tenant's right to secure only such f-_
portion of the holding as may be necessary for his convenient en joy-
ment is equitable in nature. Under the common law a tenant is liable to .
eviction and he has no right to purchase the land demised to him at any- --., -
price as well as under the Transfer of Property Act. The only right of a
C tenant who may have put up structure on the demised land is to
remove the structure at the time of delivery of possession on the
determination of the lease. Section 9 confers an additional statutory_;..___
right on a tenant against whom suit for ejectment is filed to exercise an
option to purchase the demised land to that extent only which he may
require for convenient enjoyment of the property. The tenant has no
D vested rigl)t in the property instead; it is a privilege granted to him by
the statute which is equitable in nature.

Whenever an application is made by a tenant before the Court
for issuance of direction to the landlord for the sale of the whole or ).
part of the land to him, the Court is under a mandatory 'duty ;to
E determine the minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for
the convenient enjoyment by the. tenant. This determination can ""!!
obviously be made only after an enquiry is held by the Court having
regard to the area of the demised land and the extent of super-structure __J
standing thereon, and the tenant's need for the land for the bene- \
_ ficial enjoyment of the super-structure which he may have constructed .,_,_....
F ·· thereon. The enquiry pre-supposes that the tenant making the applica- -~
tion has been in the occupation of the land and the super-structure
wherein he may be either, residing or carrying on business, and on his
eviction he would be adversely affected. The policy underlying Section
9 of the Act, is directed to safeguard the eviction of those tenants who
may have-constructed super-structure on the de.mised land, so that they
G may continue to occupy the same for the purposes of their residence or
business. Section 9 (1) (b) ordains the court to first decide the minimum )---
extent of the land which may be necessary for the convenient enjoy-
ment by the tenant, it therefore contemplates that the tenant requires
the land .for the convenient enjoyment of the property. If the tenant
does not occupy the land or the super-structmc or if he is not residing
H therein or carrying on any business, the question of convenient enjoy-

:'£
P.A. NAIR v. G. RAMAKRISHNAN (SINGH, J.] 745

...,
; men! of the land by him could not arise. The Court has to consider the
need of the tenant and if it finds that the tenant does not require any
A

part of the land, it may reject the application and direct eviction of the
tenant, in that event the landlord has to pay compensation to the
tenant for the superstructure.
B
In the instant case, admittedly the land in dispute was leased out
t '
to N. V. Abdullah Sahib for carrying on business, the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court both .have recorded concurrent find-
,...___
- ings of fact that the business which was being carried on by N. V.
Abdullah Sahib and his heirs was discontinued in 1964, and except for
defendant Nos. 4 and 7, all other defendants have settled down outside
Madras and they were not occupying the land or the building thereon c
nor they were carrying on any business in any portion of the building
.1, on the date of filing of the ejectment suit. Only in a small portion of
the entire land account books of the business was kept and the rest of
the land and the super-structure standing thereon has been in the
occupation of sub-tenants since 1964. The Courts have further recorded
D
findings that except defendant No. 4 (Appellant No. I) other
defendants are not interested as they did not contest the landlords' suit
for eviction. These findings clearly show that the none of the defen-
dants have been in occupation of the land of the super-stru~ture stand-·
J ing thereon and they have not been carrying on any business therein.
Even in the ejectment suits, barring defendant No. 4 none appeared to
E
contest the suit and ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.
The Trial Court as well as the appeal court both have recorded findings .
that the land in dispute and the super-structure has been in occupation
~ of sub tenants since 1964. In view of these findings the High Court
I refused to interfere with the orders of the Trial Court as confirmed by
•)I the appeal court. Having regard to these findings and the nature of the
tenants' right to purchase land under Section 9 being equitable in
F
nature, it would be unreasonable to direct the landlord to sell the land
to the tenants. The facts and circumstances available on record show
that the tenants do not require the land for their convenient enjoy-
men!, therefore, it would be inequitable to direct the landlords to sell
the property to the tenants. It is a matter of common knowledge that
G
price of land, specially in the urban areas has escalated to a great
-"{ extent and it would not be fair to deprive the landlords of their pro-
perty and to allow the tenants to enrich at the landlords' expense. The
law does not intend that the tenant should enrich at the instance of the
landlord even though the tenants do not require the land for their
convenient enjoyment. H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A We do not therefore find any good reason to interfere with the v·
High Court's order dismissing the appellants revision application. We r
accordingly dismiss these appeals but make no order as to costs.

P.S.S. Appeals dismissed.

--.. -

,, -
I
·~
'
·....,iii-
\ '