1. In this case (Civil Revision Petition No. 21 of 1923) the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 125 of 1921 in the Small Cause Court applied under Section 9 of the Madras Act III of 1922 for an order directing the plaintiff to sell the land in the suit. The sole question is whether at the time the Act came into force the defendant can be described as "a tenant against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted." It is not contended that those words can beer the extreme meaning that any tenant against whom a suit in ejectment had ever been instituted--a suit which might have been brought to a completion by execution, and ejectment--is within these words of Section 9; but it is contended that it applies to a case where the suit in ejectment has resulted in judgment but has not been executed or completed by the process of ejectment. It seems to me that that contention is right and that the tenant intended by the section is a person who is threatened with ejectment as the result of legal proceedings instituted against him but has not in pursuance of those proceedings been actually ejected. It seems to me immaterial whether or not the proceedings resulted in a decree which might lead but has not led to an actual ejectment, of the tenant. This is in accordance with the view expressed by the late Chief Justice and my brother Wallace in Kanniappa Chettiar v. Ramachandraiyar 79 Ind. Cas. 92 : 46 M.L.J. 407 : 19 L.W. 587; (1924) M.W.N. 386, and I agree with them in thinking the case in Latifa Bi v. Mottai Ammal 72 Ind. Cas. 141 : 46 M. 836 : 44 M.L.J. 271 : 17 L.W. 341; (1923) M.W.N. 233 : 32 M.L.T. 290; (1923) A.I.R. (M) 320, was wrongly decided. The answer to the reference, therefore, be in the affirmative.
Ramesam, J.
2. I agree.
Wallace, J.
3. I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
Comments