MYLAPORE CLUB Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2005-10-98
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on October 18,2005

MYLAPORE CLUB Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ARULMIGU KASI VISWANATHASWAMY DEVASTHANAM VS. KASTHURIAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
C S PERIYARDASAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-252] [REFERRED TO]
K S POOMARI VS. A UMARSHA [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM ORPORATION LIMITED VS. GNANAMANI AMMAL CHATRAM [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
P R ANURADHA VS. V PADMAVATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-119] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH BEHAR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2008-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
S BAGIRATHI AMMAL VS. PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION [LAWS(SC)-2007-12-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P. K. Balasubramanyan, J. - (1.)These appeals challenge the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court dated 4-3-2003 upholding the validity of Sections 2 and 3 of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1996) published in the Official Gazette on 11-1-1996. By virtue of Section 2, Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 was amended and in the sub-section providing for exemptions from the operation of the Act, clause (f) was added and in that process exempting tenancies of land owned by religious institutions or religious charities belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religions. By Section 3, it was declared that any proceeding instituted by a tenant in respect of any land owned by such a religious institution or religious charity, which was being exempted from the operation of the Act pending before any Court or other Authority, would stand abated and all rights and privileges conferred by the extension of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 would cease and would become unenforceable. However, a proviso was added to the effect that nothing containing in Section 3 shall be deemed to render invalid, any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the date of the coming into force of the Act. It is not necessary to set out in detail the history of the legislation since the same has been set out in S. M. Transports (P) Ltd. vs. Sankaraswamigal Mutt (AIR 1963 SC 864) and in M. Varadaraja Pillai vs. Salem Municipal Council (85 Law Weekly 760). It is only necessary to notice a few salient aspects. The present amendment, more or less, resembling the amendments introduced by Amendment Act 13 of 1960 exempts lands belonging to a religious institution or religious charity, from the operation of the Act and also provides for abatement of pending proceedings and saving of completed transactions as against lands belonging to the Corporation of Madras, Municipalities and certain other entities under Act 13 of 1960.
(2.)The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 was enacted with the avowed object of giving protection against eviction to tenants who in Municipal towns, townships and adjoining areas in the State of Tamil Nadu have constructed buildings on others lands, so long as they pay a fair rent for the land. It applied to all leases created before its commencement and initially it applied only to the City of Madras. Section 1(2) gave power to the State Government to extend the applicability of the Act as amended to other areas in the year 1955. By virtue of Section 3, every tenant on ejectment was entitled to be paid as compensation, the value of any building which may have been put up by him. Compensation was liable to be paid for the trees planted and other improvements effect by him. This was included by the amendment in the year 1926. Section 9 enabled a tenant who was entitled to compensation and against whom a suit in ejectment had been filed, to apply to the court to direct the landlord to sell to him the optimum area out of the leasehold wherein the building of the tenant stood. By the Amending Act of 1955, the Act was made applicable to constructions put up before the Amending Act. Hence the Act had no application to tenancies created or constructions made after 12-9-1955. Notifications were issued extending the operation of the Act to various towns. The Act was further amended in the year 1960, by Act 13 of 1960. A proviso was added to Section 1(3) by providing that the Act shall not apply to tenancies of land owned by the Corporation of Madras, by the Municipalities, by the local Panchayats and certain other public bodies. Section 9 of that Amending Act provided for abating of certain pending proceedings affecting the rights and privileges which may have accrued to the tenant immediately before the commencement of Act 13 of 1960.
(3.)The amendment introduced by Madras Act, 13 of 1960 taking away the protection of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the "Parent Act") as amended, was the subject of a challenge in this Court in S. M. Transports (P) Ltd. vs. Sankaraswamigal Mutt (supra). This Court repelled a challenge to the exclusion of non-residential tenants from the umbrella of protection afforded by the parent Act as amended. From the suits instituted by the Salem Municipality, a landlord, in respect of lands covered by the parent Act as amended, appeals reached the Madras High Court and that Court in M. Varadaraja Pillai vs. Salem Municipal Council (supra) rejected all the contentions and upheld the validity of the Amending Act of 1960 including the exemption and the abatement of proceedings under Section 9 of that Act and upheld the validity of the decrees passed in the suits. The decision in M. Varadaraja Pillai vs. Salem Municipal Council (supra) was sought to be challenged in this Court by way of appeals. But those appeals were dismissed without going into the question whether the Amendment Act was valid or not on the ground that the State of Madras had not been impleaded therein. Thus, the decision in M. Varadaraja Pillai vs. Salem Municipal Council (supra) stood affirmed, but without consideration of the merits of the judgment therein. When the present enactment exempting tenancies created by religious institutions or religious charities came into force, Writ Petitions were again filed in the Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Amending Act practically on the same basis as raised when Amending Act 13 of 1960 was brought into force. Those writ petitions were dismissed on the basis that the judgment in M. Varadaraja Pillai vs. Salem Municipal Council (supra) had been affirmed by this Court and in view of it, nothing remains to be decided since the very reasoning adopted therein, would apply to the present amendments. Feeling dissatisfied , the Writ Petitioners took up the matter in appeal to this Court. This Court in S. Shanmugavel Nadar vs. State of T.N. and Anr. (2002) 8 SCC 361) took the view that since the appeals from M. Varadaraja Pillai vs. Salem Municipal Council (supra) were not disposed of on merits, but were dismissed on technical grounds, the present batch of writ petitions which had been referred to a Full Bench for decision had to be decided by the Full Bench on merits and it was not correct to say that the Court could not go into the correctness of the decision in M. Varadaraja Pillai vs. Salem Municipal Council (supra), the question referred to the Full Bench, since that decision had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The case was remanded to the High Court for a decision on merits by the Full Bench. Thereafter, the Full Bench considered the question in detail. It held that the validity of the amendments could not be successfully challenged by the Writ Petitioners, the appellants before us, and that the challenges have to be thrown out, based on the principles of law as settled by the decisions of this Court in various decisions including the decision in S. M. Transports (P) Ltd. vs. Sankaraswamigal Mutt (supra). It is the correctness of this decision of the Full Bench that is challenged in these appeals.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.