Statutory tenant protections cannot be bypassed in writ proceedings when mandatory enquiry under the Tenants Act is required.

The Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 confers a conditional right on a tenant to seek purchase of the land, but only after a mandatory enquiry into whether any portion is required for convenient enjoyment and, if so, the minimum extent and price. The High Court could not direct eviction in writ proceedings without first applying that statutory procedure, because the tenant's protections under Sections 3 and 9 could not be bypassed by summary jurisdiction. The precedent relied upon was inapplicable since the relevant statutory provisions were not considered on its facts. The eviction directions were therefore unsustainable, and the dispute had to proceed under the Tenants Act before the proper forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could direct eviction in writ proceedings without first considering the tenant's statutory protections under Sections 3 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, and whether the earlier precedent relied upon was applicable on the facts.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Tenants Act confers on a tenant, who satisfies the statutory conditions, a right to seek an order directing the landlord to sell the land, but that right is conditioned by a mandatory judicial enquiry into whether the tenant requires any portion of the land for convenient enjoyment. The court must first determine the minimum extent necessary for such convenient enjoyment and then fix the price accordingly. If the tenant does not require the land, the application may be rejected and eviction may follow with compensation for superstructure, but the tenant's statutory protections cannot be bypassed by treating the controversy as fit for summary disposal in writ jurisdiction. The precedent relied upon was held to be inapplicable because the statutory provisions now in question were not considered there, and decisions must be read in the factual and statutory context in which they are rendered.

Conclusion: The High Court's eviction directions were unsustainable, and the matter had to be dealt with in proceedings under the Tenants Act before the appropriate court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special tenancy statute creates a conditional statutory right requiring a mandatory enquiry, writ proceedings should not be used to bypass that statutory procedure, and precedent cannot be applied without testing its factual and statutory fit.

---