JAMNADAS DHARAMDAS v. DR. J. JOSEPH FERREIRA & Anr.

The respondent filed a revision petition against the order of the appe, llate Court declining to direct possession of the two buildings and the appe1la-nt-tenant filed an appeal against the order of appellate Court directing his ejectment from the two plots of lands Nos. 12 and 13. The High Court disposed of both the revision petition and the cross appeal by a common i~ allowed the revision petition of the respondent/landlord and dismissed the ~peal of the appellant'/ tenant and· decreed the suit of the respondent directing appe:Jlant to deliver peaceful possession of the land demised to him and also buildings which have been constructed by the appellant on the demised lands. It also confirmed the decree regarding arrears of rents and mesne profits. Hence the appeal by _certificate. judgment wheJreby Dismissing the appeal, the Court. HELD : !. Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 confers jurisdiction on the Court of Small Cause, Bombay to entertain and try any suit for pro tenant relating to recovery of rents or posses ceedings between a landlord and sion of any premises to which any of the provisionSr of that part applied. The jurisdiction thus conferred enables the Court to try any suit between the land lord and the tenant relating to recovery of possession of the premises. [1022 A-B] Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Framroze Tariiporel!<·ata· and Ors., [1953] 3 SCR 266; Babulal Bhura Mal and Anr. v. Nandra1n Shivram and Ors., [1959] SCR 367; followed. I (" Y' -;...J t- ~ n I~ '1 ' r .JAMNADAS v • .J • .JOSEPH (Kailasam, J.) 1017 Raizado Tapen Das and Anr. v. Ml s Gorakhram Gokalchand [1964] 3 SCR A 214; Sushi/a Kashlnath Dhonde Gnd Or.. v .. Harl/a/ G<Nindji Bhogani and Ors., [1970] 2 SCR 950 explained and distinguished.

#2. The conditions specified in section 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent ~; 1947 will have ta be strictly observed by the tenant if he wants to avail himself In the instant case, the persistent Oil' the benefits provided under the section. defawt of the appellant·tenant on various occaoions and his clear statement that B he Was not in a position ·to pay the arrears would exclude any reJief under section 12(3 )(b) of the Act The respondent-plaintiff would be entitled to a decree for possession of the plots under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and in effect the decree for possessioo of the land would mean that the l;;nd should be delivered to him without the structures. [1023 D-G, 1025 O.·E] Ganpat Lodlla v. Sachikant Vishnu Shivalc, [1978] 3 SCR. 198; applied. C

#3. To contend that as the respondent-plaintiff has sought, two reliefs one under the Bomhay Rent Act and another under the contract, the entire plaint In aSking for the relief for possession of the land. must be rejected is wrong. the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to incidental and consequential reliefs such as for effectively taking possession of the plot without the structure, that is he is. entitled to ask for the demolition of the superstructure. The prayeri plaint asking for possession of the land including the structures would not take the suit out of the competence of the Small Causes Court. [1025 E, F-G] Rarnachandra Raghunath Shirgaonkar v. Vishnu Balaji Hindalekar, AIR )920 Born. 87; Khimjee Thakorsee v. Pioneer Fibre Co. Ltd., AIR 1941 Born. 337 and K.· Arumugham Naicker and Anr. v. Tiruvalluva N.alnar Temple by its Trustee, AIR 1954 Mad. 985; approved. CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 531 of 1979. Appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated 23-10-1969 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1596 of 1965. D. V. Patel, N. N. Keshwani and R. N. Keshwani for the Appellant. I. Sorab; ee, R. Daruwala, P. G. Gokha/e and J. R. Gagarat for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. This appeal is by the defendant-tenant by certifi cate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against its judgment dated 21-1-69 is Special Civil Application No. 1596 of 1965 granting a decree directing that the defendant shall vacate and deliver peaceful possession not only of the land demised to him under lease in the suit but also of the three buildings which have been cons- tructed on the demised land. \ ~I It• By a lease deed dated 14th December, 1948 the plaintiff !(ave the defendant on lease two plots Nos. 12 and 13 situated at Sitaladevi 6-610SCl/80 / . D E F G H A B c D E F G B 1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.It. Temple Road, Mahim for a period of 15 years commencing from 1st December, 1948 at the yearly rent of Rs. 10,200/- payable in equal The lease deed quarterly instalments of Rs. 2,550/- in advance. provided that the defendant was at liberty to erect building and struc tures on the two plots of land. The defendant agreed to pay and discharge all taxes and outgoings imp<l6ed on the 'above two plots as the ex also on the buildings to be erected by the defendant On piration of the term of 15 years or sooner termination of the lease the defendant agreed to deliver back the possession of the two plots to the plaintiff 'free of all buildings, erections and structures and levelled arid put in good order and condition to the satisfaction of the plaintiff'. Clause . IV of the lease provided for determination and forfeiture of the lease in the event of the rents having been allowed to be in arrears for more than 30 days or upon breach. of conditions' of the lease. The forfeiture clause also provided that upon forfeiture the plaintiff would be entitled to re-enter upon not only tl:\e two plots of land but also the structures standing thereon. 1 The defendant defaulted not only in payment of rent but also in payment of taxes due in respect of lands and buildings which erected. The plaintiff filed a suit in 1951 for ejectrnent. The defen- dent filed an application for the fixation of standard rent and standard rent was fixed at Rs. 435 /- per month from September 1, 1950. A compromise was entered into between the parties in the . suit on 5th March, 1954 by which the parties agreed on a rent of Rs. 435/- per month from September, 1950 to February, 1954. extent An appeal against the fixation of standard rent of Rs. 435/- per mensem was disposed of on 28th June, 1955 whereby standard rent was fixed at Rs. 620/- per month from 1st September, 1950. The defendant again defaulted in payment of rent and taxes. The arrears of rent amounted to Rs. 11,4 72.30 and taxes to Rs. 1, 12,053.60 for the period ending 30th September, 1960. · The plaintiff by a notice determined and forfeited the lease and called upon the defendant to deliver possession of the lands alongwith struc The notice also specified that the notice was not tures thereupon. only a notice of forfeiture but also notice under section 12 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). On 1st Decem ber, 1961 as the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent and taxes, the plaintiff filed the present suit and pra, yed for a- decree for ejectrnent against the defendant in respect of two plots of land anil also the buildings and structures standing thereon, and claimed arrears of rent of Rs. 11,472.30 and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 620/- -~ . JAMNADAS v. J .• JOSEPH (Kailasam, J.) 1019 'I)le defendant filed written statemegJ and denied per month. allegations made in the plaint. The defendant in order to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 12(3) (b) of the Bombay Ren!S Act applied for time for making deposit of arrears of rent. The application ·was taken on the 20th June, 1962 and further time was Tune was sranted to enable the defendant to make the deposits. . extended on several occasions and finally on 6th Augnst, 1962, the court that he was not in a position to make defendant any deposit at all. informed After the issues were framed and the suit was taken up for trial, Ilic defendant once again applied for relief under S. 12(3)(b) of the Act and prayed that he may be allowed to deposit the arrears of rent and cost. The deposit was accepted by the Court after making an endorse ment, "accept without prejudice". Subsequently, on 11th November, 1964, the trial Court passed a decree for ejectment in respect of plots and the buildings in favour of the plaintiff. A decree wasi granted regarding arrears of rent and for mesne profits. Both the plaintiff and the defendant preferred appea!S and Bench of two Judges of the Court of Small Causes by a common judg ment disposed of both the appeal on 4th April, 1965. The appellate Court held that it had no jurisdiction to give a decree for ejeetment i~ respect of the two buildings constructed on Plot No. 12 by the defen dant. It held that clause N. of the lease whicl:\ permitted forfeiture was in the nature of penalty and the defendant was entitled to be relieved from the liability to deliver possession of the buildings cons tructed by him upon forfeiture by the plaintiff. It also found that the defendant was entitled to be relieved from the penalty of forfeiture of the lease under Ss. 114 and 114A of the Transfer of Property Act. It rejected the plea of the defendant that he wa~ always ready and willing to pay all arrears of rents and found that< because of repeated defaults the defendant was not entitled from ejectment under S. 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. The plaintiff filed a revision 'petition against the order of the appellate COIUrt declining to direct filed af\ possession of the two buildings and the defendant/tenant appeal against the order of the appellate Court directing ejectment of the defendant from the two plots of land~ mentioned in the plaint. The High Court disposed of both the revisions by the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant by a common judgment whereby it allowed the revisio_ns filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal of the defen dant and decreed the suit of the plaintiff directing the defendant deliver peaceful possession of the land demised to him and also build ings which have been constructed by the defendant on the demised. relief A B c D E F G H .. • 1 ~· () " A B C D E G B 1820 SUPREME COUJ.T REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. It also confirmed the decr~ regarding arrears df. lands. mesne profits. rents and On behalf of the defendant it was submitted that the Court's juris diction is limited only to adjudicate. on leased premises under Ille Bombay Rent Act and therefore it had no jurisdiction to try the suit regarding possession of the structures put upon, the leased lands. It was pleaded that a relief regarding the superstructures will not be one It was contended tbii.t under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. as the suit is for a composite relief namely for the possession of the; leased land and for the superstructures it is beyond the jurisdiction of It was the court, and the suit as a whole should have been dismissed. submitted that in any event as clause IV in the lease deed is in th~ nature of penalty providing for the forfeiture of the structure. which did not form part of the lease, the decree for posse~sion oil the structures In any event it was submitted that there could is not maintainable. ,};fl no forfeiture of the structures on thei ground that the municipal pxes were not paid and that the term as to payment of arrears of taxes cannot be considered as a clause in: the lease deed and the defendafil; should be relieved against the penal clause.. Lastly, it was submitted that the Courts below were wrong in not granting relief under section 12(3)(b) of. the BO!llbay Rent Act. Before considering the several coµtentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant it will' be useful to refer to the relevant clauses of the lease deed and the relief prayed for in the plaint. The deed dated 14th December, 1948 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was a lease of two plots of land, plot Nos. J 2 and 13 situated at Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim for a period af 15 years iili an yearly rent of Rs. 10,200/- payable in equal quarterly instalments of Rs. 2,550/ in advance. Subsequen, tly standatd rent was fixed by the trial Court at Rs. 435 /- which was raised by the appellate court to Rs. 620 /- per mensem. The lease permitted the defendant to erect buildings and structures in the· two plots of land. The buildings were erected in only plot no. 12 and not in plot no. 13 which remains un built and vacant. The defendant agreed to pay and discharge all taxes and outgoings imposed on the above two plots as also bru1dings to be erected by the defendant. The defendant also under took to deliver possession of the two plots to the plaintiff "free of all lease. buildings, erections and. structures" on the ~ration of Clause IV empowered the lessor to terminate the !easel and prO!vided that.the lessor will be at liberty to re-enter not only upon the two ploti of the lands but also on the structures, standing thereon. In the plaint it was stated that as thd defendant had failed to pay rents and taxes. and I f ~ ' t' ! j .j\ JAMNADAS V. J. JOSEPH (Kai/asam, J.) 1021 lease and A committed breach of conditions the plaintiff forfei.ted the called upon the defendant tq pay arrears of rent and taxes. · The sui~ '11'111 based not only ·on the forfei.ture of the lease bu~ also for posses• 11iou. of the leased plots' under S. 12 of the Boinbay Rents Act. In palagrapbi 9 of the plaint it is alleged "the plaintifi say that in the event of the defendant contending that he has become a statutory tenant of the said land, after' th~ tenancy had been duly and validly terminated, B the plaintiff would submit that the defendanti had failed and neglected to pay the arrears of standard rent amounting to Rs. 11,472.30 upto 31st August, 1961 and does not observe and perform condition ll(b) of his lease, and so he is not entitled to thei-protet:tion of the Bombay Rent Coutrol Act." ' · c In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Plaint, it is alleged that the pro visions of the Bombay· Rents Act 4 7 of 194 7 apply to the said land ·and the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The reliefs asked for by the plaintiff in paragraph 13 (a) is that the defen dant may be directed to hand over peaceful possession of the lands to the plaintiff together with the buildings and structures standing thereon. D Thus it would . be seen that the plaint is based on the terms of the lease deed after forfeiting the lease and for the possession of the leased lands according to the terms of the Bdmbay Rent Act. The main defence which was raised by the tenant in the Courts below as well as before us is that the suit is not triable under S. 28 E of the Bombay Rents Act and in any event relief regarding possession of the structures would be beyond the scope of the relief contemplated in the Bombay Rent Act. Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act runs as follows : - "28 (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in any law and notwithStanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for any other reason, the suit or proceeding would not, but for the provision, be within its jurisdiction, in Greater Bombay, the Court of Small Causes Bombay. (a) (b) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x try any suit or shall ha~ jurisdiction to enlfftain and proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of this part apply and to decide any application made under this Act and to deal. with any claim or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions F, G H \ -~ ( A B c D E F G

102.2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [J980] 3 S.C.!l. , and subject to the provisions of sub-secJion ( 2) , no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such claim or qul'Stion." The Section confers jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes Bombay to .entertain and try any suit or proceedings between a land-' lord and tenant. relating to recovery of rents or possession of any premises to ,which any of \the provisions of this part apply. The jurisdiction thus conferred enables the, Court to try any suit between the landlord and the tenant relating to recovery of possession. of the ·It is admitted that the premises is the two plots of land premises. only and not the superstructure. The plea of the plaintiff is that the relief. for recovery of possession of the plot which is the subject. matter of the lease, would also include relief relating to the superstructure as being related to ·relief of recovery of possession of the leased pre mises namely the plots and land. The submission on behalf of plaintiff is that as the jurisdiction of Civil Courts have been specifically excluded, and the matters relating to possession of the leased premises, it would imply that not only relief of the possession of the leased lands but also matters relating to it would be beyond the jurisdiction of other oourts and therefore the plaintiff has no other option than to file the, suit for relief as to the structure being only ancillary and incidental to the relief of possession. of the leased lands. Before we proceed to consider this plea, we might note that Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned rounsel for the plaintiff submitted that though it might be open to him to contend that the reliefs relating to the structures based on the lerms of the contract would also be decisive on an application · made under the act as being related to the recovery of the possession of the leased premises, he would content himself with relief as to structures is so closely and inextricably related to possession •f the land that no effective relief of possession of the wuld be given without giving relief in respect of structures. Relief as to structures also should inevitably follow. If this submissicm is accepted it would be unnecessary for us to consider. the other limb of the· arguments on behalf of the appellants that the relief claimed as a result of the forfeiture is not enforceable by a Court administering Bombay Rent Act or thaf the plaintiff cannot enforce terms of forfei ture which did not relate to leased plots or that the defendant would he entitled to relief against forfeiture under Ss. 114 and 114A of the Transfer of Property Act. the plea leased B All the Courts below have found that the defendant is not entitled to any relief under S. 12 ( 3) (b) of the Act and that so far as the leased plots are conceme\I, the plaintiff i9 entitled to possession 11*' the Bombay Rent Act. After fifuig of the suit it is seen that die J f .\ y JAMNADAS v. J. JOSEPH (Kailasam, !.) 1023 ) the amount under protest by the B defendant asked for time f\lr payment of arrears of rents and the matter A came up before the Court on the 28th June, 5th July and 6th August, 1962 for payment of arrears. On the last date the appellant's advo cate informed the Court that the appellant was not in a position to pay It is only two years later on 18th September, 1964 the the arrears. defendant obtained Court's permission to deposit balance of arrears ' of Rs. 12,800/- and , deposited plaintiff. The Tiial Court after considering all the facts· found there was intention of default a,nd neglect in payment of rent. The conduct of the defendant was wilfully not ready and willing to pay the. rent. It again found that the payment of arrears was not made dili gently and the defendant had flouted the orders of the Court to deposit the arrears of rent and the discretion- cannot be exercised in his favour when he persisted in not paying the taxes for about 12 or 13 years and was constantly in arrears of rent for about 14 months at the time of the notice. The appellate Court also came to the same conclusion holding that it is not a case where discretion of the Court under S.12 (3 )(b) should be exercised in favour of the tenant. The High Court also confirmed the findings of the Court below that the defendant was llOt entitled to relief under Section 12 ( 3 )(b) of the Act. On tacts we are also in agreement with the findings of the three courts below that the persistent default of the defendant on various occasions aDd his clear statement that he was not in a position to pay the arrear•, would exclude any relief under section 12 ( 3 )(b) . .c D E In a recent decision of this Court reported in Ganpat Lad ha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, (') it has been held that when the tenant eloes not fulfil the conditions as required under section 12 ( 3 )(b), he eould not claim protection under section 12{3)(b). This Court ebserved that it is difficult to see how judicial discn; tion exercisable F in favour of the tenant can be found under section 12 (3) (b) even where conditio'ns laid down by it were not satisfied. This Court over ruled the decision of the case of Bombay High Court in Kalidas v. [Jhavan Bhagwandas•('). The conditions sepcified in S. 12(3) (b) will haYe to be strictly observed by the tenant if . he wants to ayail himself of the benefits provided under the Section. G On the facts therefore we find that the plaintiff is entitled to a '1ecree for possession of the two plots under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. As plot No. 13 has not been built upon a'nd is vacant there could be no difficulty in confirming the decree for poA- session in favour of the plaintiff regarding plot No. 13. H (I} [1978] 3.' S.C.R. 198. (2) 60 Bombay L.R. 1359. 11)2.( SUH.BM!! COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.Jt. A B c in Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Framroze Tar« porewala and Ors,(') this Court held that the claim for compensation was merely an incidental claim for possession under the Act. "Sec tion 28 had conferred jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes not only to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord . and tenant for recovery of rent or possession but also to deal with any claim or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions and s. 28 was thus wide enough to cover the question raised as bet It will be seen that the plea ween the plaintiff and ihe sub-lessee". that a suit against a sub-lessee is not within the jurisdiction of the Small ~auses Court, was negatived by this Court and it was held that sec- tion was wide enough to cover the questions raised between the palin· tiff and the sub-lessee. In Babula/ Bhuramal and An.r. v. Nandram Shivram and Ors.(') related to sub-lessee of the premises. The suit was filed for eject ment of the tenant and the sub-tenant in the Court of Small Causes. The tenant and the sub--tenants later filed a suit before the Bombay City Civil Court for declaration that the lessee was a tenant and was protected from eviction by the provisions of the Bombay Rents Act and that as. B and C were lawful sub-tenants, were also entitled to possession. This Court agreed with the view taken by the. Higa Court that section 28 of the Act barred the City Civil Court from entertaining the suit filed by the lessees and the sub-lessees as section 28 conferred the right oil the Small causes to entertain a suit between a landlord and a tenant in respect of a claim which arose out of the Act or any of its provisions. Thus it prohibits a suit from being enter tained by the City Civil Court at the instance of the tenant. In Raizada Topandas and Anr. v. M/s. Gorakhram Gokalchand ( •) it was held that if a suit is framed by a landlord or a tenant and relief asked for is in the nature of a claim which arises out of Act or any of the provisious then only and not otherwise will be covered by s. 28 and as there were no such claim the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaint in the case proceeded on the footing that during the periOd of agreement the appellants were mere licensees and after the expiry of the agreement they were trespassers. As the plaint in terms negatived the relationship of the landlord and tenant, it was held that the Rent Court had no juris diction. This decision cannot be of any help to the appellant. (!) [1953] S.C.R. 226. (2) [1959] S.C.R. 367. (3) [1964j 3 S.C.R. 214. F G II • .y JAMNADAS v. J. JOSEPH (Kai/asam, J.) 1025 In Sushila Kashi.nath Dhonde and Ors. v. Harilal Govindji Bho gani and Ors.,(') this Court held that it is not necessary that there should be relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of all the matters covered bys. 28(1) of the Act so as.to give jurisdiction to It further held that in respect of other the Court of Small Causes. matters dealt with snb-section, it is not necessary the relation ship of landlord and tenant shollld exist between the parties before the Court. The Court repelled the contention that a charge created by the deed executed between the parties did not give rise to any claims or questions arising out . of the Bombay Rents Act or its provisions and held that nature of reliefs to be granted to the plaintiff are all daims or questions arising out of the Act and can be dealt with only by the special court constituted under S. 28 of the Act. No doubt, the deed .of charge furnished a cause of action, but its legality, vali- · dity and binding nature and other incidental matters connected there with are all questions arising out of the Act and the plea on behalf of the. appellants that the rights of the plaintiff did not flow from the Act or any of its provisions but from the contract, could not be accepted. _ of the respondent that as the plaintiff has sought two The decisions referred to above will show that that the plaintiff/ landlocd of the land is entitled to claim the relief for possession of his; land and in effect the decree for possession of the land would mean that the land should be delivered to him without the structures. Apart from the relief under the lease deed, the plaintiff is entitled to wcceed as he has estabished that there was default Of payment under the provisions of the Bombay Rents Act. The jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to grant an effective decree for possession of the land cannot be denied. Equally untenable is the contention reliefs one undoc the Bopibay Rent Act and another under the Contract, the entire plaint must be rejected. As we have already observed so far as the relief of possession of the premises, i.e. the )and is concerned, it is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. In asking for the relief for possession of the land, the plaintiff eniitled to incidental and consequential reliefs such as for effectively . taking possession of the plot without the structures. The prayer the plaint asking for possession of the land including the structures would not take the suit out of the competence of the Small Causes In this view if is not necessary toi us to go into the quesiion Court as to whether the terms in the contract regarding the forfeiture can be enforced by the Small Causes Court. purpose of this Suit to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to seek for sufficient It (I) (1970] 2 S.C.R .. 950. . J A c D E F G H 1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1980] 3 s.c.R. A possession of the land which is the premises in the suit, and getting possession of the land he is entitled to ask for possession of the land without any superstructures. In this connection refer ence may be made to the nature of the relief which the plaintiff is entitled to. In Ramchandra Raghunath Shirgaonkar v. Vishnu Bala- it was held that the ordinary rule of law is that ji Hinda/akar, ( 1) the tenant must give up vacant possession of the land demised at the end of the term and that if he builds on the laud of the tenancy he builds at. his own risk. At the end of the term he can away his buildii)g but if he leaves it there, it becomes the landlord's property. The Court further held that the tenant who had been in possession of land for a large number of years and built a cootly and substantial house on the land of the tenancy witl1 the knowledge of the landlord, is entitled to some compensation. required lessees were In K. Arumugham Naicker and Anr. v. Tiruvalluva Nainar Temple that after the determination of the lease, deliver over possession of the demised premises lo the lessor and the lessees were entitled to remove the structures which they mlght have erected during the continuance of the tenancy. The lessees, however, failed to remove the structures on the date of the determinatio)l of the tenancy and on the next date tile premises were occupied by oilier lessees, it was held tile lessees could remove the structures on and not after determination Of the tenancy and having failed to remove the same on the determination of the tenancy they lost not only tlieir right to remove the structures after the determination of the tenancy but also all right, title and interest in tliose structures. In K. Arumugham Naicker and Anr. v. Tiruvalluva Nainar Tmiple by its Trustee,(') it was held that where a court directs by a decree or order vacant possession of land, that decree could be made e!Jec tive by directing its own officers to remove the super-structures in the property and deliver vacant possession· of the properties to the decree-holder. behalf. The power to remove the superstructures is an incidental, .necessary. and ancillary power to the power to deliver posSCMio!t of tile property. It is unnecessary to have any specific power in We are satisfied that the Small Causes Court had jurisdicti<m w entertain tile suit of the plaintiff not only for possession of the land which is the premises under the Act but also for otl1er make the decree for possession effective. plaintiff is entitled to ask for relief the superstructuru. This incidental or ancillary relief would not take out the suit ~d reliefg In this connection regarding ' (I) A.LR. 1920 Born. 87. (2) A.I.R .. 1941Born.337. (3) A.l.R. 1954 Mad. 985. B c D E. F G H ' ~ ,, I, • \ JAMNADAS v. J. JOSEPH (Kailasam, J.) 1027 ' the A the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. The plea composite relief had been asked for and that the entire plaint ought to be rejected is also unsustainable. In the result, we agree with the contentions of the plaintiff that in asking for relief as to pooses-- sion of the land, he is entitled to ask for structures and for grant of vacant possession of the plots. So far as the plot No. 13 is concerned, there is no difficulty. The plot is B not built upon and is vacant and therefore we have ~o hesitation in confirming the decree for possession so far as the plot No. 13 is con- cerned. the demolition of · · I Plot No. 12 has been built upon. There are.about three storeys consisting of about 72 flats, shops with carpet area of 13,000 square ft. and the cost of building with superstructures in 1949 was about Rs. 6,00,000/-. We may in this connection note that from the date of the decree passed by the High Court on 23rd October 1969, the defendant has not paid arrears of rents or the taxeg due on the build- ings. He is in law bound to pay the arrears of rent and the municipal charges which he has undertaken. On a consideration of the facts of the case, we feel that there are no grounds for interfering with the decree passed by the High Court for possession not only of the vacant plot but also of the superstructure and mesne-profits and arrears of rent. The law provides for the tenant If to remove the superstructure on the termination of the tenancy. it is not thus removed the tenant loses all his rights to the super structure and the landlord becomes entitled to it. But in a case where !,here is a substantial building, it is only reasonable the court should explore the possibility of payment of some compensation to the tenant who had put up this structure. But in this connection we are reminded that for several years neither the arrears of rent nor the taxes amounting to several lacs of rupees had been paid by the tenant. Not only the tenant but several persons who have put up flats at their own costs may press their claim for· compensation and it will be diffi- cult to determine as to who are entitled to compensation and the pro to. We portion of the compensation to which they will be entitled enquired of the parties at the conclusion of the arguments if it was possible to come to some arrangement regarding the superstructure but to our regret the parties informed us that they could not arrive at any settlement. In the circumstances, we have no alternative except to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the High Court. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal, but in the special circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs in this Court. c D E F G H S.R. Appeal dismissed.