Application to Court for directing Landlord to sell land - to invoke Section 9, Tenant has to fulfill 4 conditions namely: (1) He must be in possession of land, (2) Such Tenant should have erected superstructure on land in respect of which Tenant would be entitled to Compensation under Section 3 of Act, (3) Landlord should have filed Suit against Tenant for eviction/recovery of possession, (4) Tenant should have applied to Court for direction under Section 9 within 1 month from date of receiving summons

Citation 

2015 (6) CTC 340 (Mad)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

K.B.K. Vasuki, J.

C.R.P. Nos. 1601 of 2008 & 4771 of 2013; M.P. Nos. 1 of 2008 & 1 of 2013.

September 07, 2015

Thyagaraya Nagar Social Club, by Its Secretary, Somasundaram, No.1, Nageswara Rao Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17; Thyagaraya Nagar Social Club, by Its Secretary, No.1, Nageswara Rao Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17

Vs.

...Petitioner

Woodlands Tiffin Room, Rep. by K. Krishnamoorthy, No.3, Nageswara Rao Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17; Woodlands Tiffin Room, Rep. by K. Krishnamoorthy, No.3, Nageswara Rao Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17; Bank of Maharastra, Rep. by Its Branch Manager, No.3, Nageswara Rao Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17

...Respondent

Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (T.N. Act 3 of 1922), Sections 9 & 9(1)(b) Application to Court for directing Landlord to sell land - Whether particulars of construction have to be described mandatorily by Tenant in Section 9-Petition-Held, to invoke Section 9, Tenant has to fulfill 4 conditions namely: (1) He must be in possession of land, (2) Such Tenant should have erected superstructure on land in respect of which Tenant would be entitled to Compensation under Section 3 of Act, (3) Landlord should have filed Suit against Tenant for eviction/recovery of possession, (4) Tenant should have applied to Court for direction under Section 9 within 1 month from date of receiving summons in Suit S.R. Radhakrishnan v. Neelamegam, 2003 (3) CTC 488 (SC) followed In Section 9 Application, Tenant is duty bound to furnish particulars regarding construction put up in demised property, which in present case, Tenant has failed to furnish- Mere vague description would not suffice- Under Section 9(1)(b), Court has to first decide minimum extent of land which may be necessary for convenient enjoyment by Tenant Therefore, minimum requirement of land cannot be decided without ascertaining extent of constructed portion in occupation of Tenant - On facts of present case, Tenant/Respondent herein has failed to furnish material particulars such as nature and area of construction in each floors, portion in occupation of sub-tenant and main Tenant - Same does not fulfill Statutory requirements - Therefore, Section 9-Application is liable to be dismissed on this score alone Ananthakrishnan Nair v. Dr. G. Ramakrishnan, 1987 (2) SCC 429 followed Impugned Order set aside - Revision allowed. P.