Holding

Amended provisions of Section 9 (and Section 10) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act govern pending suits, voiding the earlier order and permitting fresh proceedings under the amended scheme.

Summary

The appellant, New Theatres (Carnatic Talkies) Ltd., held a lease for land on which it built a theatre and later claimed a right to purchase the site under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921. The respondent, N.V. Naidu, sought the appellant's eviction and the matter proceeded through multiple suits, appeals and a Civil Miscellaneous Petition invoking Section 9. While the High Court had earlier ordered the appellant to purchase the land at the market price, the Madras Act No. XIII of 1960 amended Section 9 (and Section 10) to change the valuation method and to apply to pending suits. The Supreme Court held that because the suit was still pending when the amendment came into force, the amended provisions governed the disposal of the suit, rendering the earlier order under the unamended Section 9 void and requiring fresh proceedings under the amended scheme. It further held that the respondent could seek relief under the amended Section 9 even after the earlier appeal before this Court had been decided, as that appeal was limited to the validity of the unamended provisions. Consequently, the appeal by the appellant was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

The amendment of Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, whether it applies retrospectively to suits pending at the time of amendment.
Whether the order passed under the unamended Section 9 remains valid after the amendment.
Whether the respondent could invoke the amended Section 9 after the Supreme Court had disposed of the earlier appeal limited to the unamended Act.

Legislation cited

Madras Act No. XIII of 1960 (amending the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act)s. 10, s. 9
Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921s. 10, s. 3, s. 41, s. 9
Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882s. 41

Subjects

tenancyleaseevictionsection 9 amendmentretrospective applicationlandlord-tenant rightsmarket value valuationcivil appealspecific performance

Judgment

•

329

.THE NEW THEATRES {CARNATIC TALKIES)
A
LTD., COIMBATORE.

i '· •
N. VAJRAPANI NAIDU.
B
[Y. v. CliANDRACHUD c :r.• R. s. PATHAK ANo

SABirASACHI MuKHARn,.JJ.J.
•
October 1, 1983 c
, Madr<11 CIJy Tenant•, Protection Ac!": 1921 & Madra. Ciiy Tenant1,
Protection (Amendment) Act, 1960 Section 9-Ejfect of the amendln{f act-
ApplicabllilY to pendln{f proceedln1•.

.The respondent and his mother granted a lease in respect of an open site D
of land for a period. of 20 years in favour of a peraon. who constructed a
•theatre thereon and who later assigned his riglits to the appellant and the appel-
was
lant accepted as ·a tenant by the respondent. The respondent subsequentJ1
served notice upon the appetiant calling upon it to vacate the property and to·
surrender vacant possession of the site. · ThO appellant refused, and set up
· can oral agreement entitling it to an extension of the lease for a further period

,.
of 20 years. The respondent filed a suit for ejectment against the appellant
lnd the appellant filed a suit for specific performande Or an agreement to · •
-
'
extend the lca1e. The 1ubordinate-Court decreed .the responderit's suit for
possession with mesne profits and diamiised. the appellant's suit.

The appellant appealed to the High Court against the two decrees, and
during their pendency the Madras City Tenanto' Protection Act, 1921 was
extended to the town where th• 1uit propei:ty wa•.•ituated. The appellant
thereupon filed- a Civil Miscellaneom: Petition in tho appeal arising out or the
suit for ejectmen't. for directions" under section 9.ofthe Act (or sale of the ~it• .
• This application waa resisted by the reapoD.dent oli •the ground ihat section 9
was void. The Righ Court upheld the yalidity of the section, declared the
appellant entitled to- purchase the site under section 9 Snd remitted the matter
to the subordin~tc..Court for appointmo:nt of a Commissioner to fix the market G
value of the site. Against that order the respondent preferred a Letters Patent
Appeal which was dismissed and this order' was confirmed by the Supreme
Court.

• During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, section 9 of the Madras·
City Tenants' Protection Act was amended by Madras Act No. XIII of 1960. · H
The respondent filed two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions In the Hi1h Court
praying for review and modification of the earlier order in•view of the amended
~lion 9, and for at~y of the valuation· procee<IJnas.
I

SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1984) 1 s.c.R.

After the dismissal of the respondent's appeal in the Supreme Court, the
High Court dismissed. the pending appeals as withdrawn transferred the two
Civil Miscellaneous Petitions to !he trial court and directed it to fix the market
value of the site and pass final orders. The suborditlate-Court lield that the
respondent was entitled to the benefit of the anlendCd section 9, and directed )>
·the Comn1issioner to determine the minimum extent of land necessary for
convenient enjoyment and ~x the price on Hie basis of the average inarket value )
of the land during the three years immediately preceding the dat~ of its order.
-<
The appeal to the District Court and thC Civil Revision Petition in· the High
B Court against this order were dismissed.
jiff;

tt
In thC appeal to this Court was contended on behalf of the appellant ,.:;;
that the amended section 9 Of _the Madras City Tenants' Proteciion Act, could •
.not be invoked, and that Kction 9, as it s.t9od before.the amendment, governed ~
the rights.of the parties, aiid that in an'y event th~ amended section 9 should re
have been invoked in the appeal peridiDg ill the Supren1e Court, and' that relief j
not havin&: been sougbt there-,.it wa, not open to the respondent io seek relief +
after the appeal had been disposed of by . the. Supreme. Court. · .
Dismissing the· appeal, the, Court.

n· HELD : I (i) If the suit was pending on the date when the amendments
in the principal Act (Madras.City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921) were bfought
into force, the amended provisions of the Act will govern the disposal of the
suit. [337 DJ

(ii) The suit continued pendin& on the date When the principal Act was
'E. amended.by Act )(Ill of 1960. ConS:equently, it was governed by the provisions +
of the amended section,9. As the scheme Under thC original section stood
superseded by the scheme enacted. under the amended section, tho order of
July 2S, 1958 stood aborted and pursuant to the am~nded section fresh
proceedings llad to be taken by the Court to·dispose of the suit. [3~8 A-BJ

(iii) _When the Amend~ent Act ·xm of 1960 amended the principal
-
' Act' it amended not only section 9 thereof but section 10 also.· Section ·10 Wai
am~nded in ofder that the -amended provisions .should apply to pending
ejectment suits and procee4bings. The provisions of the amended s~ction 9 (1)
~eveal th.at the scheme resp~cting the·tenanCs right to pul"chase, and the land-
lord's. obligation to sell, the land stood .modi:fieq.., ·Whereas the origirial
section 9· (1) "provided ·for the making of an application by the tenant
within a specified period to the court for an order directing_ the Jandloi:::d
0 to sell the land for ·a ·price to .be fixed by the court:. and court was
requ~ed to fix the price according to. the lowest market value prevalent
within sev~n years preceding the .date of the- order, and to order,· within a
period to bC determined bY the court, the tenant to pay into court or otherwise
as direCted the price so fixed, the.amended section 9 (1) is diV-ided into two •.
clauses. Clause (a). entjtles the .tenant within an identical period, to apply to
H the court for an order requiring the landlord to sell, for a price io . .be fixed by
ihe court, the whole, or part Of, the extent of the land specified in· the apPli-.
Catiqn .. Clause (b) provjdes that the court will first decid.e the minin1um. extent
Of thC land necesSary for co~vQnient
.- . . ...by
ei:ijoyment. ·- the..tenant.rand
thereafter
.. - . .. '- . . .:the
..
.
NEW THEATRES v; N.v. NAIDU (Pathak, J.)
. 331
court wilI fix the price of such minimum extent of land or of the eXtent of the
land specified in th'e application, •hichever is less. [336 F-H; 336 H-337 CJ

In the instant case, the appellant had a1ready filed Civil Miscellaneous
Petition No. 1835 of 1958 pnlying for directions under section 9 for the sile

-, of the site .. On thai applichtion the High Court p·assed 'an order dated July
28 1958 holding the appellant entitled to purchase the site on· paying the full
m~rk~t vil1ue current on that date, and had directed the trial court to appoint
a Commissioner to fix the value of the site. That order did not dispose of the B
application and thC s_uit, 'for under the original section 9(3) the statute contem-
plated an order by the Court, after-it wa.s satisfied that the tenant had paid the
price determined by. it, directing the .conVcy.ance of the land. 6y the landlord to
. the tenatit. It was only after s·Jch an order was made that the appliction and .
the suit would stand concluded. [337 E-GJ .

2. The scope of the e2rlier appeal filed in the Supreme Court was
c
restricted to the validity of section 9 and 12 of the unamended Madras City .
Tenants' Protection Act, and the C0urt declined to consider the operation of
the amendments brought about in 1960. It was, therefore, open to respondent
after the disposal of the appeal to apply to the cOurt below for an order in
terms of the amended section 9. [338 F-H; 339 A] •
D
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1601 of
1971.
,
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and 'order daied
the 30th March, 1971 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 19883
of 1968. E

- T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Gopal Subramimium and Mrs. Saroja
.
Gopa/akrishnan for the Appellant.

Krishnan for the Respondent.
'

P. Govindan Nair, Miss Seita VaidJ,lingam and Mrs. Baby
. P
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an

- '
order dated March 30, 1971 of the Madras High Court dismissing a
, revision petition arising out of proceedings under the Madras City
Tenants Protection Act, 1921.
G

Almost fifty years ago, on September 19, 1934, the respondent
and his mother gf8nted a lease in favour of one Abhirama Chettiar
in respect of 50 cents of open land in Coimbatore for a period of H
twenty years on an annual rent of Rs. 1080 for the construction of
a building suitable .for use as a theatre. Abhirama Chettiar construc-
ted a theatre on the site. Subsequently,
. '
on July
.
14, 1937
.
Abhiram~
.
3J2 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 1 s.c.R.

A
- Chettiar assigned his rights to the appellant. The appellant attorned
to the respondent and 'was accepted as· a tenant. In March, i 964,
the respondent served notice upon tqe appellant calling upon it to
· vacate the property and 5urrendcr vacant possession of the site.. The
appellant refused to do so, and set up an oral agreement entitling it
to an extension of the lease for a . further period of twenty years.
The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for its ejectment.
• •
B
Shortly thereafter, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent J
for specific performance of an agreement to extend the lease. On
January 16, 1957 the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore,
decreed the respondent's suit for possession with· mesnc profits and
dismissed the appellant's suit. The appellant appealed to the High
•
Court against the two decrees. · During the pendency .of the appeals
the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 was extended to the
town of Coimbatore with effect from February 19, 1958: ·The
appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1835 of 1958 in the
appeal arising put of the suit for ejectment and prayed for directions
under s. 9 of the Act for the sale of tho.site to it. The application
'D
was resisted by the respondent on tho ground that' s. 9 was void.
On July 28, 1958 Panchapkesa Iyer J. passed the following order :

"I declare that the petitioner is entitled to purchase
the site concerned in the petition under Section 9 of the
l!l Act, bu.t on paying the full market value .current· today as
freely undertaken by himself. The lower Court will
'appoint a suitable experienced commissioner to fix the
value of the site based on the market value prevalent this
p da.Y (28th July 1958).. The Commissioner's fees will 'be·
paid by tho commissioner who will bear it himself. In
this. petition all the parties will bear their own costs. As
$OOn as this order becomes final the petitioner wm with~
draw A.S. No. JOO or 1957 and 255 or 1957 on the file or
this Court, as infructuous as undertaken by. him, and they
G will then ~e dismissed without costs." ·
/

The petition was remitte.d by the learned Judge to the Subordinate
Court, Coimbatore for appointing a Commissioner to fix the market
value of the site. Against that order the respondent preferre,d a
• Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed. The respondent then
H appealed to the Supreme Court. By its judgment ·dated March 4,
1964, reported as N. Vajrapani Naidu and Another v. The New Theatre
..
NEW THEATRES v. N.V. NAIDU (Pathak, J,) 333

Carnatic Talkies Ltd., Coimbatore(!) the Supreme Court upheld the
l judgment of Panchapakesa Iyer J. and dismissed the. appeal.

Now during the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court,
s. 9 of the Madras City Tenant's Protection published in the Fort
j St. George Gazette dated· July 27, 1960 Act was· amended by Madras
Act No. XIII of 1960. Upon that, the respondent.filed two petitions
in the High Court, C.M.P. No. 7241 of 1960 praying for t.he review
and modification of the order dated July 28, 1958 in the light of

- +
' the amended s. 9, and C.M P. No. 7242 of 1960 praying ·for stay
of the enquiry directed by that order.· On April l, · 1964, upon the
dismissal of the respondent's appeal in this Court, the High Court
dismissed the appeals against the .decrees passed by· Panchapakesa
Iyer J. as withdrawn: The High 9ourt also transferred the C.M.P.
]'llos. 7241 and 7242 of 1960 to the trial court for consideration, and
c

directed the trial court to fix the market value and pass· final orders in
C.M.P. No. 1835 of 1958. The foarned Subordinate Judge belJ that
the respondent was enti tied to the benefit qf the a~ended s. 9 of the
D
Act, and directed the Commissioner to determine the minimum extent
of land necessary for convenient eojoyment by the ·appellant to take
steps for fixing the price thereof on the basis of the average market
value of the three years imniediatcly preceding the date of its order.
C.M.P. ,No. 7242 of 1960 was dismissed as superfluous. Against the
-+ order of the trial court the appellant filed an appeal in the court of E
the learned First Additional Judge, Coimbatore. The appeal was
dismissed. Thereafter, the· appellant filed Civil Revision Petitibn
No. 1883 of 1968 in the High Court, and on March 30, 1971 the
• High Court dismissed the Revision Petition. The High Court
affirmed that the case was governed by the amended s. · 9 of the Act,
and rejected the contention of the appellant that C.M.P. No. 7241 of F
1960 was not competent in the High Court as the order dated July
28, 1958 by Patfchapakesa Iyer J. had been confirmed by the Supreme
Court, in appeal.

Two contentions have been raised by the appellant in this G
appeal.. The. first is that the. amended s. 9 · of the Madras City
Tenants' Protection. Act cannot be invoked in the present case, and
·that s. 9, as it stood before the aniendment, is· the provision which
governs the rights of the parties. The other contention is that, in any
event, the amended s. 9 should have been invoked in the appeal

(\) (1964] 6 S.C.R,. 101~.
33.4 SUPREMB COURT REPORTS (198.4] 1 s.c.a.

pending in this Court and the relief not having been sought there it
A was not open to the respondent \O seek relief after the appeal has ,
been disposed by this Court and the order of Panchapakesa Iyer J,
had acquired finality.

Before its amendment by Madras Act XIII of 1960, s. 9
provided as follows :-
B •
"9. (I) Any tenant who 'is entitled to compensation
· under section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectm¢nt has
been instituted or proceeding under section 41 of the
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act 1882, taken by the
c landlord, may within one month of the date of the
Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955,
coming into force or of the date withl, effect from which
this Act is extended to the municipal town or village' in .
which the land is situated or within one month after the
-service on ~ of summons, apply to the court for an
D order that the landlord shall be directed to sell the land
for a price to be fixed by the court. The court shall fiX
the price according to the lowest market value prevalent
within seven years preceding the date of . the order and
shall order that, within a period to be determined by the
E court, not being less than three monihs and not more than
three years from the date of the order, the tenant shall +
pay into court or otherwise as directed the price so fixed
in one or more instalments with or without interest.

(2) xx. xx XX I

. (3) On payment of the price 1he court shall pass a
final order directing the conveyance of the land by the
landlord to the tenant. On such order being .made the
suit or proceeding shall stand dismissed, and any decree
or order in ejectment that may have been passed therein
G but which has not been executed shall be vacated."·

Upon its amendment, s. 9 now reads ;-

"9 (I) (a) Any tenant who is,entitled to compensation
H under section- 3 and against whom,a suit in ejectment has
been instituted or proceeding . under section 41 of the .
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, taken by the
landlord, may within\>~ mo11th \lf the. d(te of Madras
NEW TilllA'rRES v. N.v. NAIDU (Pathak, J.) 335
City Tenants, Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955 coming
into force or of the date with effect from which this Act A
is extended to the municipal town or village in which the
land is situated or within one month after the service i:>n
him of summons apply to the court for an order that the
landlord shall be directed to sell. for a price to be fixed by
the court, the whole or part of, the extent of land speci· B
fled in the application .
•

r
(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 fix the price of the minimum extent of the c
+ land decided as aforesaid, or of the extent of the land
specified in the application under clause (a) whichever ;is•
less. The price aforesaid 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 court not being less than three' months D
and not more than three ye~rs from the date of the ·order,
the teil'ant shall pay into court or otherwise as directed
the price so fixed in one or more instalments with or
without interest.
(2) xx xx xx xx E

• (3) (a) on payment of the price fixed under clause
(b) of sub-section (I) , the court shall. pass ~n order
directing the conveyance by the landlord to the tenant of
the extent of land for which the said price was fixed. The
•
F
court shall by the same order direct the tenant to put the
landlord into possession,of the remaining extent of the
land, if any. The stamp duty and registration fee in
respect of such conveyance shall be borne by the tenant.

(b) On the ·order referred to in clause (a) being G
made, the suit or proceeding shall stand dismissed, and
any decree or order in ejectment that may have been
·passed therein bnt which has not been executed ·sliall be
vacated."
B
The question whether the case is governed by the unamended
s.·9 or.the. amended s. 9 'turns on the consideration whether the
amendment of s. 9. was intended to operate retrospectively or must
' ' J
SUPREME COURT RBPORTs · ft984] l s.c.~.
be construed as prospective ooly. Let us begin from the beginning.
A When the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act was extended to the
town of Coimbatore in 1958, the respondent's suit for ejei:tment had
already been filed' and in fact was pending in appeal. It was never
disputed between the parties that s. 9 would operate retrospectively
and affect the rights of the parties in the pending appeal. It was on
8 that basis that the appellant applied to the court .for the benefit of
the provisions of s. 9. The A9t itself clearly laid down that ·S. 9
could be invo.ked in .a pending suit or proceeding, for s. IO declared .
that s: 9, among other provisions, would "apply to suits in ejectment

c
........... which are pending ..... .. in the city of Madras before
the commencement of the Madras City Tenants' Protection
(Amendment) Aci, 1958; and in any m~nicipal town or village before
1
th~ date with effect from which this Act is extended to such town or
' village." It is to enable a tenant to secure the benefit 'of s. 9 in a
pending suit or proceeding that s. 9 (I) provides that such tenants
may apply under that provision "wnhin one month 'of .the date of
D the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955 com·
ing into force or of the date with effect fro!ll which this Ac( is
extended to the municipal to\Vn vr village in which the land is
situated ........." This provision was necessary to enable s. 9 to
govern pending suits and proceedings. the other provision in S/ 9 (!)
providing that the period of one month would commence. from "the
E service on him of summons" applied to future suits·· and
proceedings.

· When the Madras Act XIII of 1969 amended the principal Act,
it amenCled not only s. 9 thereof but s. IO · also. Section 10 was .
F amended in order that the amended provisions should apply to pen· '
ding ejectment suits and proceedings. The Legislature employed
.. the same d~vice in respect of pending suits and proceedings as it bad
when respect of pending suits and proceedings as it had .when the
Act was originally applied to such suits and proceedings, the only'
difference being that.while the original s. 10 ·referred to the then
G existing provisions of the Act, the amended s. 10 referred to the
amended provisions, including the amended s. 9,' of the Act. It is.
apparent from the provisions of the ·amended. s. 9 (1) .extracted
. earlier that !be scheme respecting the tenant's right to purchase and
the landlord's obligation to . sell, the land now stood modified.
H
Whereas the original s. 9 (1) provided for the making of an appli•
cation by the tenant within a specified .period to the court for an
.order directing the landlord to sell the land for a price to be, fixed
NE\V TllEATRBS v: N.v. NAIDU (Pathak, J.) 33,
by the couri, and the courf was required to Di the price aceording
to the lowest market value prevalent within seven years preceding
the date of the order, and to order, within a period to be determined
·by the court, the tenant to pay into ~ourt or otherwis'e as directed
the price so fixed; the amended s. 9 (I) is divided into. two clauses.
Clause (a) entitles the tenant, within an identlcal period, to apply to
the c91rl for an order reqJliring the landlord lo sell, for a price to
B
be fixed by the court, the whole, or part ·of, the -extent of the land
specified in the application. The court can now direct the sale -of
a-part.only of the land' mentioned in the application and is not
compelled to pass an order in' respect of the entire land. Clause (b)
provides that the court will first decide the minimum extent of the
land necessary for convenient enjoyment liy the tenant, and there· c
+ after the court will fix the price of such minimum extent of !_and or -
of the extent of the land specified in the application, whichever is
less. Furthermore, the price is to be the average market -value of
the three years immediately preceding the date of the order. We are
cJear in our mind that if the s_uit was pending on the date when the
_amendments in the ptincipal Act were brought into force, the. D
amended provisions of the .Act will govern the disposal of_ the
•uit;
,.
Now, the appellant had already filed C.M.P. No. 1835 of 1958
_praying for directions under s..9 for the sale of the· site. Qn that' E.
application Panchapakesa Iyer J. had passed an order dated July 28,
1958-holding the appellant entitled to purchase the site on paying the
full market value current on that date, and had directed the trial
court io appoint a Commissioner to fix the value of the site. The
order did riot dispose of the application and the suit, for under the -
original s_ 9· OJ the statute contemplated an order by_ the court, after it F
was satisfied that the tenant bad paid the price determine!! by it, direc-
ting the conveyance of thr laqd by the landlord to the tenant. I_t was
only after such order was made that the application and the 'suit
would stand concluded. In Gnanaprakasam and Another v. Mahboob
Bi and others,( 1) a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Co~rt
held -that even where the original courJ had made an order
G
/ fixing the price o~ the land and directing its payment by the tenant,
the application filed by ihe tenant could not be regarded as at an end
so long as fina) orders directing execution -of coniieyance and deli·
very of possession were not passed. -_The stage for passing such order H
· had not been reached yet when the principal Act was amended by -
,
.
(1) [196211 M.L.J. 254.
'
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS tl984) 1s.c.lt

Act XIII of 19.60. Th.e suit continued pending on the date when )
the amendments took effect. And consequently, it was now governed
by the provisions of the amended s.9, We may reiterate that the
order dated July 28,1958 did not complete the proceeding in the suit.
It constituted one stage only in the suit, and inasmuch as the- suit
was now to be disposed of in accordance with the amonded statute
the incomplete proceeding had to give w~y to t~ the operatwn of
B the amended statute. As the scheme under ·the original section
stood superseded by the scheme enacted under the amended sections·
the order of July 28,1958 stood aborted and pursuant to the amended
section fresh proceedings had to be taken by the court . in order to
dispose o( the suit.
c
The respondent, therefore, filed C.M.P.No.7241 of 1960 praying
for a review of the order dated July 28,1958 in the light of the
amended s.9. In other words, the court was now called upon to
. · disppse of the application of the appellant, not in t_he light of t b,.e
D provisions of the original s.9 but on the basis of the ·provisions of
the amended s.9. We are of opinion ·that the trial court is right in
taking the view, and the High Court in affirming it, that C.M.P.
No. 1883 ·of 1968 and t,he suit had to be disposed of on the basis
of the provisio.ns of the amended s.9. The contention to the
E contrary raised by the appellant must fail. 1

We are also unable to accept the other contention of the
appellant that the respondent should have invoked the benefit of
•. the amended s. 9 in' the appeal pending in this Court, and that not
having done so it was not open to the respondent 'to apply for
relief in the court below after the appeal bad been disposed of by
this Court: It is apparent that the scope of the appeal filed in this
Court was restricted to the vailidity of s.9 and s. 12 of the un-
amended Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. It must be remem· ·
bered that the order of Panchapakesa Iyer J, when gave rise to that
0 ·appeal, was made before the Act was amended in 1960, and Ibis
Court concerned itself. solely with the validity or the unamended
statutory provisions. In fact, perusal of its judgment will show that
this Court declined to consider the operation of the amendments
brought about iif 1960. In the circumstances, it is· not possible to·
B urge that the respondent might; or ought to, have insisted on relief
.. under the amended s.9. in the appeal pending in this Court. It was,
'
Nl!W j:'HEATRES v. N.VMNl\IDU (Pathak, J.) 33~

therefore, open to the respondent after the disposal of the appeal .
by this Court to apply to the court below for an order in terms of A
the amended s.9.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs .

N.V.U..
. . Appta/ dismissed.
B
•

•

,,

r