1972 (1) TMI 109 - HC - Indian Laws

Madras Act 13 of 1960: Lease Stipulations Validated, Municipality Granted Relief

M. Varadaraja Pillai Versus Salem Municipal Council and Ors.

The court upheld the validity and retrospective application of Madras Act 13 of 1960, validated lease stipulations under Section 12, granted relief to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Madras Act 13 of 1960.2. Retrospective application of Madras Act 13 of 1960.3. Validity of lease stipulations under Section 12 of the Act.4. Relief to the Municipality regarding the leased site and superstructure.5. Quantum of mesne profits or damages for use and occupation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Madras Act 13 of 1960:The tenant argued that Madras Act 13 of 1960, which exempted lands owned by municipal councils from the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, was unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31 of the Constitution. The court rejected this argument, stating there was no evidence to prove the exemption was arbitrary or discriminatory. The court emphasized that the Legislature had ample justification for the amendment, as public bodies experienced considerable hardship and inconvenience under the Act. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including S.M. Transports (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamigal Mutt, to support the view that government and public authorities could be treated differently from private individuals for public welfare reasons.2. Retrospective application of Madras Act 13 of 1960:The tenant contended that the Act should not have retrospective effect on tenancies that were current and subsisting before the amendment. The court held that the amendment was intended to have retrospective operation, as indicated by the language and context of the statute. The court noted that the Act applied retrospectively to tenancies created before its commencement and extended to new areas by government notifications. The court referenced several decisions, including the Privy Council's ruling in Abbott v. The Minister for Lands, to support the principle that a statute could interfere with existing rights if it was intended to do so.3. Validity of lease stipulations under Section 12 of the Act:The court examined whether the stipulation in the lease deed, requiring the tenant to remove the superstructure and hand over vacant possession, was saved by the proviso to Section 12 of the Act. The court reviewed several Supreme Court decisions, including Vajrapani Naidu's case and Mylapore Permanent Fund's case, to determine the scope of the proviso. The court concluded that the stipulation was valid and saved by the proviso, as it related to the erection of buildings and was agreed upon by both parties in a registered lease deed.4. Relief to the Municipality regarding the leased site and superstructure:The court held that the Municipality was entitled to recover possession of the land and the superstructure. The court noted that the tenant had not applied for compensation under Section 3 or for the conveyance of the land under Section 9 of the Act. The court allowed the Municipality to amend the plaint to include a claim for possession of the superstructure, subject to the condition that the tenant should remove the superstructure and hand over vacant possession by a specified date. If the tenant failed to do so, the Municipality would be entitled to recover the land along with the superstructure.5. Quantum of mesne profits or damages for use and occupation:The court fixed the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from 11th August 1958 until 30th June 1972. The court stated that the plaintiff (Municipality) was entitled to mesne profits for both the land and the superstructure until delivery of possession. The court also noted that the plaintiff's omission to ask for possession of the superstructure was inadvertent and allowed the amendment of the plaint to include this relief. The court imposed conditions to avoid imposing a huge burden on the tenant, who had not been well-advised in pursuing protracted proceedings.Conclusion:The court upheld the validity and retrospective application of Madras Act 13 of 1960, validated the lease stipulations under Section 12, granted relief to the Municipality for possession of the land and superstructure, and determined the quantum of mesne profits. The tenant's appeals were dismissed, and the Municipality's claims were largely upheld.