http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: V. SANJEEVARAYA MUDALIAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: N.A. RAGHAVACHARY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/1968

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SIKRI, S.M. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  435            1969 SCR  (1) 158  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1970 SC1683  (29,30)

ACT: Madras City Tenant’s Protection Act, 21 of 1922, ss. 2, 3, 9 and  12-Tenant  of vacant site in  backyard  of  residential house whether a tenant  of land under s. 2(2)-Written  lease deed  containing  stipulation against raising  of  permanent structures-Such stipulation whether  one as  to erection  of buildings within meaning of proviso to s. 12-Breech of  such stipulation  by tenant-Tenant whether can take advantage  of ss. 2 and 9 thereafter.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent, by a registered lease deed, let to  the appellant  for  a  period of five years the  backyard  of  a residential  house  in  Madras. The  backyard  consisted  of vacant land.  According to the lease deed the appellant  was allowed  inter alia to boil and dry paddy on the  said  land and  he  was  also allowed to erect  a  temporary  shed  for keeping the paddy on condition that while vacating the  land he  would  dismantle the same. The  deed  also  specifically provided  that the appellant "should not erect any  kind  of permanent  super-structure on the said vacant site so as  to entitle  him  to  claim in future  the  value  thereof."  In continuation  of  his  stipulation  the  appellant   erected permanent super-structures on the land. On the expiry of the lease  of  the  appellant refused to vacate  the  land.  The respondent  thereupon  filed a suit for his  eviction.   The appellant claimed protection under the Madras City  Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921, Within the prescribed time he flied an application  under s. 9 of the Act asking for an order  that the  respondent be directed to sell the land for a price  to be  fixed  by  the  court.   The  trial  court  decreed  the respondent’s  suit.  The first appellate court reversed  the decree  of the trial court but the High Court  restored  it. In appeal by special leave to this Court the questions  that fell  for determination were: (i) Is the tenant of a  vacant site in the backyard of a residential house a tenant of land within  the purview of s. 2(2) of the Madras  City  Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 ? (ii) Having regard to the proviso  to s.  12 is such a tenant entitled to the protection of ss.  3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

and 9 of the Act in a case when he has erected buildings  on the  land  in contravention of an express stipulated  in   a registered deed ?     HELD:  (i)  If the respondent had  let  the  residential building  together  with its appurtenant  land  the  tenancy would  not be a tenancy  of land within the meaning  of  the Act.  But the respondent  did not let the building with land appurtenant  thereto.  He retained the building and let  the land separately.  The letting was of land and nothing  else. The  appellant was not a tenant of a building as defined  in s.  2(1) either before or after its amendment by Madras  Act XIII of 1960. He was a tenant of land as defined in s. 2(2). [162 A-C]      (ii)  (a) Under s. 3 a tenant on ejectment is  entitled to  he  paid  as compensation the  value  of  any   building erected  by him.  A  tenant entitled to  compensation  under s.  3   and against  whom a  suit  for  ejectment  has  been instituted is entitled to purchase the whole or part of  the land  by invoking the procedure under s. 9.  The  effect  of the main part of s. 12 is that nothing in any contract  made by a tenant takes away or limits his rights  under ss. 3 and 9.  The proviso  to 159 however,  saves stipulations as  to erections of   buildings made by a tenant in a registered writing. [162 D-E]     (b)  A stipulation as to the erection of buildings  made orally or in an unregistered writing is not protected by the proviso  and a tenant erecting a building in breach  of  the covenant is entitled to the benefits of as. 3 and 9. [162 E- F]     R.V.  Naidu  v.  Naraindas,  [1966]  1  S.C.R.  110  and Naraindas v. Naidu, (1963) 1 M.L.J. 140. referred to.     (c)   A  stipulation  for  giving  vacant   land   after demolition  of  the  building  which  the  tenant  has  been authorised   to  construct  thereon is  not one  as  to  the erection of buildings within the proviso to s. 12. Therefore in the present case the stipulation that the appellant could erect a temporary shed on condition that while vacating  the land  he would dismantle the same was not protected  by  the proviso to s. 12. [164 C-D]     Vajrapani Naidu v. New Theatre Carnatic Talkies,  [1964] 6  S.C.R. 1015, relied on.     Vajrapuri  v.  New Theatres Carnatic Talkies,  (1959)  2 M.L.J. 469, 477-8, referred to.     (d)  But  in  the  present  case  the  lease  deed  also contained  an express stipulation that the  appellant  would not erect permanent structures of any kind so as to  entitle him to claim the future value thereof.  This stipulation was clearly one as to the erection of buildings. [164 E]     In  contravention of the stipulation as to the  erection of  buildings in the registered deed the  appellant  erected permanent  structures  on  the land after the  date  of  the lease.   The effect of the proviso to s. 12 is that  nothing in  the Act affects the stipulation.  Sections 3 and  9  are subject  to  and  controlled  by  s.  12.   The  stipulation overrides  the  tenant’s right under s. 3.   If  the  tenant erects  a  permanent  structure  in  contravention  of   the stipulation he is not entitled to any compensation under  s. 3.  As he is not entitled to any compensation under s. 3  he cannot  claim  the benefit of s. 9. The High  Court  rightly held  that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit  of s. 9. [164 C---165 B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 776 of 1966.     Appeal  by  special leave from the  judgment  and  order dated April 26, 1965 of the Madras High Court in A.A.O.  No. 1 of 1962. S.C. Manchanda and T. A. Ramachandran, for the appellant.     B.  Sen,  M.  Srinivasan and  R.  Thiagarajan   for  the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Bachawat,  J.  The respondent is the owner  of  premises No.  8,  Brahmin Street, Saidapet, Madras. By  a  registered lease  dated November 21, 1952 he let to the  appellant  the backyard of the 160 premises  for a term of 5 years.  The backyard consisted  of vacant land.  The lease deed authorized the appellant to use land  for boiling ,and drying paddy, to use the gate in  the western  compound wall for ingress and egress, to  erect  an opening  in  the  wall for bringing in and  taking  out  the paddy,  and to erect a temporary shed for keeping the  Daddy on condition that while vacating the land he would dismantle the same. The deed specifically provided that the  appellant "should not.erect any kind of permanent super.structures  on the said vacant site so as to entitle him to claim in future the value thereof," except such facilities as were necessary for  drying Daddy at his own expense.  In  contravention  of this   stipulation  and  without  any  authority  from   the respondent, the appellant erected permanent super-structures on  the  land.  On the expiry of  the  lease  the  appellant refused to vacate the land. On March 12, 1959 the respondent filed  a  suit  for  his  eviction.  The  appellant  c1aimed protection  under the Madras City Tenants,  Protection  Act. 1921 (Act III off 1922). Before filing his written statement on February 15, 1960. he filed  an application under sec.  9 of  the  Act  asking for an order  that  the  respondent  be directed  to  sell the land for a price to be fixed  by  the Court.  The trial Court decreed the suit on August 25, 1960. The first appellate Court reversed the decree and  dismissed the  suit.  The  High Court on second  appeal  restored  the decree  of  the trial Court.  The present  appeal  has  been filed after obtaining special leave.     The  Courts below concurrently found that the  appellant had  constructed  permanent super-structures on  the  vacant land after November 21, 1952 without any authority from  the respondent  and in contravention of the stipulation  in  the registered lease. This finding is not challenged before  us. In   view  of  the  fact  that  the  construction   was   in contravention  of  the stipulation in the lease,  the  Trial Court  and  the High Court held that the appellant  was  not entitled to the protection of s. 9 of the Act; but the first appellate  Court held’ that the appellant  was  nevertheless entitled  to such protection.  The Trial Court and the  High Court  held  that  the vacant site  in  the  backyard  being appurtenant  to a house was building and not land,  and  the appellant  not being a tenant of land was not  protected  by the Act; but the first appellate Court held that the  vacant site was land and the tenancy was within the purview of  the Act.   The appellant challenges the findings of the     High Court on both points.  The following two questions arise for determination in this appeal.  (1) Is the tenant of a vacant site in the backward of a residential house a tenant of land within  the purview of the Madras City  Tenants’  Protection Act,  1921 ? (2) Having regard to the proviso to sec. 12  is such a tenant entitled to the protection ss. 3 and 9 of  the Act in a case where he has erected buildings on the land  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

contravention of an express stipulated in a registered lease ? 161     To  appreciate  the points arising in this  case  it  is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the  Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.  The Act was passed  with a  view to give protection to tenants who in  certain  areas had constructed buildings on others’ lands in the hope  that they would not be evicted so long as they paid fair rent for the  land.   The  Act was amended from  time  to  time.   It extends  to the city of Madras and other notified areas  and applies  only  to tenancies of land created  before  certain specified dates.  (s. 1).  It is common case before us  that the  Act  extends  to the area where the  disputed  land  is situated. Section 2 is the definition section.    "Building" is  defined  in s. 2( 1 ) to include any  building,  hut  or other  structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, metal  or any  other material whatsoever used (i) for  residential  or non-residential  purposes in  certain  specified  areas  and (ii)  for residential purposes only, in any other  area  and includes  the appurtenances thereto.   It may  be  mentioned that   ."building"   was   not  defined   to   include   the appurtenances thereto in any area  under see. 2( 1 )  before its  amendment on July 27, 1960 by Madras Act  III of  1960. "Land"  does not include buildings, Is.  2(2)].   "Landlord" means  any person owning any land, Is. 2(3)].   "Tenant"  in relation  to any land means a person liable to pay  rent  in respect of such land under a tenancy express or implied  and includes any such person who continues in possession of  the land  after the determination of the tenancy agreement,  Is. 2(  4)].   Section  3 provides that every  tenant  shall  on ejectment  be entitled to be paid as compensation the  value of  any building which may have been erected by him and  for which compensation has not already been paid.  Section 9 ( 1 )  provides  that a tenant who is entitled  to  compensation under  sec. 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment has  been instituted may within the prescribed time apply to the Court for  an order that the landlord should be directed  to  sell the  whole or part of the land for a price .to be  fixed  by the  Court.  Section 10 provides that sec. 9 shall apply  to suits   in  ejectment  which  are  pending  before   certain specified  dates.   Section 11 requires 3 months  notice  in writing  before  the  institution of a  suit   in  ejectment against  a  tenant. Section 12 provides that "nothing in any contract  made  by  a tenant shall take away  or  limit  his rights   under  this  Act,  provided  that  nothing   herein contained  shall affect any stipulations made by the  tenant in writing registered as to the erection of buildings, in so far  as they relate to buildings erected after the  date  of the contract."  Section 13 provides that in its  application to  the  city  of Madras and to  other  notified  areas  the Transfer  of Property Act shall to the extent  necessary  to give effect to the provisions of’ the-Act be deemed to  have been repealed or modified.      The first question is whether the appellant is a tenant of   land  as  contemplated  by  the  Madras  City   Tenants Protection Act, 1921. 162 Before  the execution of the lease deed dated  November  21, 1952  the  land in the backyard was occupied  with  and  was appurtenant  to  the residential house at.  No.  8,  Brahmin Street.   It may be conceded that if the respondent had  let the residential building together with its appurtenant land, the  tenancy  would  not be a tenancy  of  land  within  the purview  of  the Act.  But the respondent did  not  let  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

building with the land appurtenant thereto.  He retained the building  and let the land separately.  The letting  was  of land  and nothing else.  The appellant is not a tenant of  a building  as defined in sec. 2( 1 ) either before  or  after its amendment by Madras Act XIII of 1960.  He is a tenant of land as defined in s. 2(2).  The High Court was in error  in holding that he was a tenant of building.     The  next  question  is whether  having  regard  to  the proviso  to  see.  12,  the appellant  is  entitled  to  the benefits  of  sees.  3 and 9 in view of  the  fact  that  he constructed  buildings  in  contravention  of  the   express stipulation  in  the  registered lease.   Under  sec.  3   a tenant on ejectment is entitled to be paid as   compensation the value of any building erected by him.  A tenant entitled to  compensation  under sec. 3 and against whom a  suit  for ejectment  has been instituted is entitled to  purchase  the whole  or part of the land by invoking the  procedure  under sec.  9.   The effect of the main part of sec.  12  is  that nothing  in  any  contract made by a tenant  takes  away  or limits his rights under sees. 3 and 9.  The proviso to  sec. 12  saves stipulations as to the erection of buildings  made by  a tenant in a registered writing.  But a stipulation  as to   the  erection  of  buildings  made  orally  or  in   an unregistered  writing is not protected by the proviso and  a tenant  erecting  a building in breach of  the  covenant  is entitled to the benefits of sees. 3 and 9. In R.V. Naidu  v. Naraindas(1)  a  piece  of  vacant land  was  let  under  an unregistered  instrument  of lease which provided  that  the tenants  would not raise any building  in  the vacant  site. The tenants erected a building on the land in breach of  the covenant. This Court held reversing the decision of the High Court  in Naraindas v. V. Naidu(2) that the tenants  against whom  a suit for ejectment had been instituted was  entitled to  the  benefits of sees. 3 and 9.  The Court  pointed  out that  as  the  covenant not to build  was  contained  in  an unregistered   lease.  the  proviso  to  sec.  12   had   no application and the landlord could not rely on the covenant.     In  the  present  case a  registered  lease  contains  a stipulation  by  the  tenant that he  would  not  build  any permanent  structure  on the land so as to  entitle  him  to claim  in  future the value thereof. The point in  issue  is whether  this is a stipulation as to the  erection  building within the proviso to see. 12.  In Vajrapuri v. New [1966]  I S.C.R. 1107                  (2) [1963]  1  M.L.J. 140, 163 Theatres  Carnatic  Talkies Ltd.(1) the tenants  obtained  a lease  of land for constructing a building suitable for  use as a theatre. The registered lease deed provided that on the expiry of the lease the   tenants would surrender possession of  the land after dismantling   and removing  the  building constructed by him. ’The  Madras   High Court held that this stipulation was not one as to the erection of buildings  and was  not protected by the proviso to sec. 12   and that  the tenants   against  whom  a  suit  for  ejectment  had   been instituted  could  claim the protection of sees.  3  and  9. Ganapatia   Pillai J. observed:                     "In our opinion, the application of  the               Proviso      should be limited to those  cases               where  the stipulations       in the  contract               relate  to  erection  of  the  building,  such               as  the size of the building, the cost of  the               building and       the design of the  building               or other cognate matters."               He added :-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

                     "We are not concerned here with a case               of  erection  of  buildings  contrary  to  the               stipulations   contained   in   the    written               contract, to which the  tenant  was  a  party.               How  far, in such a case, the tenant would  be               protected from foregoing his rights under  the               impugned   Act   does  not   arise   for   our               consideration.." This  decision  was affirmed by this Court  by  a  majority. decision  in   Vajrapani  Naidu  v.  New  Theatre   Carnatic Talkies(a).   Shah J. speaking for the majority said at  pp. 1022-23 :--                       "A  covenant in a lease which is  duly               registered that the tenant shall on expiry  of               the  lease remove the building constructed  by               him   and   deliver  vacant   possession,   is               undoubtedly  a  stipulation  relating  to  the               building,  but it is not a stipulation  as  to               the  erection of building ....  Having  regard               to  the  object of the Act, and  the  language               used by the legislature, the exception must be               strictly  construed, and a stipulation  as  to               the erection of buildings would not, according               to  the  ordinary meaning of the  words  used,               encompass a stipulation to vacate and  deliver               possession  of the land on the expiry  of  the               lease   without   claiming  to   enforce   the               statutory rights conferred upon the tenant  by               s. 9.  The stipulations not protected in s. 12               are  only  those  in  writing  registered  and               relate  to  erection  of  buildings  such   as               restrictions about the size and nature of  the               building  constructed, the building  materials               to be used’ therein and the purpose for  which               the building is to be utilised." (1)  [1959]  2  M.L.J, 469. 477-8.            (2)  [1964]  6 S.C.R. 1015. 164 The  minority  was of the opinion that the  stipulation  was protected by the proviso  to sec. 12.  Ayyangar 1.  speaking for     the minority said at p. 1032 :-                    "If a stipulation forbidding erection  of               buildings     and  requiting   their   removal               before surrendering possession of the site  is               conceded to. be one in respect of               erection  of building--as has to  be  conceded               it   is   not     possible   to   accept   the               construction   that  stipulation   for     the               removal  of  buildings  which  the  lessee  is               permitted to   erect and keep in the site only               for  the duration of the   tenancy is any  the               less   one   in   respect   of   erection   of               buildings." Having  regard  to  this decision it must  be  held  that  a stipulation  for giving vacant possession of the land  after demolition  of  the  building  which  the  tenant  has  been authorised  to  construct  thereon  is not  one  as  to  the erection  of buildings within the proviso to s. 12.  In  the present  ease  the  registered  lease  deed  authorised  the appellant to erect a temporary shed on condition that  while vacating  the  land  he  would  dismantle  the  same.    The stipulation  for  vacating the land  after  dismantling  the temporary shed is not protected by the proviso to s. 12. Had the appellant constructed a temporary shed he could in spite of the stipulation claim the protection of ss. 3 and 9.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

 In  the  present  case, the  registered  lease  deed  also contained  an express stipulation that the  appellant  would not erect permanent structures of any kind on the land so as to  entitle him to claim in future the value thereof.   This stipulation  is dearly one as to the erection of  buildings. In   common parlance a  stipulation forbidding  erection  of building is understood to be one in respect of the  erection of  building.  The popular meaning furnishes the key to  the interpretation of the proviso to sec. 12.  If a  stipulation concerning  the  size  and .nature of  the  building  to  be erected on the land’ is one as to the erection of buildings, a  fortiori   a  stipulation  forbidding  the  erection   of buildings  of a particular kind altogether is one as to  the erection of buildings within the proviso to sec. 12.   In contravention of the stipulation, as to the erection of buildings,  in  the  registered  lease  deed  the  appellant erected  permanent structures on the land after the date  of the  lease.   The  question  is  whether  the  appellant  is entitled to compensation for the structures under see. 3 and to  the  benefits of see. 9.  The effect of the  proviso  to see.  12 is that nothing in the Act affects the  stipulation Sections  3  and  9 are subject to  and  controlled  by  the proviso  to see. 12. Section 3 provides that a tenant  shall on  ejectment  be entitled to be paid  as  compensation  the value of any building  erected by him.  The right  conferred on the tenant by see. 3 is 165 controlled  by the stipulation in the registered lease  deed that he shall not erect permanent structures of any kind  on the  land so as to entitle him to claim in future the  value thereof.   The  stipulation overrides  the  tenant’s  rights under  s. 3.  If the tenant erects a permanent structure  in contravention  of the stipulation he is not entitled to  any compensation  under  sec. 3.  As he is not entitled  to  any compensation  under  sec. 3 he cannot claim the  benefit  of sec. 9.  The High Court rightly held that the appellant  was not entitled to the protection of Sec. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. G.C.                                      Appeal dismissed. 166