Judgment :- 1. The revision is against the order of the District Munsif of Villupuram in E.A. 847 of 1978, The first petitioner in the execution application is the revision petitioner. 2. The plaintiff first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. 867 of 1969 on the file of the District Munsif of Villupuram for recovery of vacant possession of the scheduled site and for profits, past and future. The defendant claimed that he had improved the property and put up a house at a cost of Rs. 10,000, but, he could not claim the benefit of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act as the provisions of the said Act were not then extended to the Municipal Town of Villupuram where the property is situate. The suit was decreed and the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. 59 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his heirs and legal representatives were added as appellants-defendants 2 to 4. Pending appeal, the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, were extended to the Municipal Town of Villupuram with effect from 31st January, 1973, But, without reference to this notification extending the provisions of the Act, to the municipal town of Villupuram, the appeal was heard, dismissed and disposed of. Thereafter, the appellants filed I.A. 344 of 1974 to review the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 59 of 1972 and the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application and remanded the matter only for the purpose of working out the appropriate relief under the said Act. Thereafter, the defendants 2 to 4 filed O.P. 19 of 1975 claiming the benefits of S. 9 of the Act, wherein they claimed that they had made improvements to the value of Rs. 18,000. The application was dismissed as barred by time. Subsequently, the defendants 2 to 4 filed E.A. 847 of 1978, the order which is the subject matter of this revision, claiming compensation for the improvements made by them under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act. The learned District Munsif held that the respondents herein-defendants 2 to 4, were entitled to compensation under S. 3 of the Act and fixed the compensation at Rs. 12,500. 3 and 4 of the Act. The learned District Munsif held that the respondents herein-defendants 2 to 4, were entitled to compensation under S. 3 of the Act and fixed the compensation at Rs. 12,500. Aggrieved by the quantum determined by the learned District Munsif the first petitioner in the execution application has preferred this revision. The respondent has not preferred any revision against the order of the learned District Munsif. 3. Two questions arising for determination in this revision are these:— (1) What are the improvements for which the revision petitioner is entitled to compensation? (2) What is the date with reference to which the value of improvements has to be determined? 4. It is well settled that a tenant entitled to the benefit of S. 3 of the Act is entitled to the value of the superstructure or other improvements made by him prior to the coming into force of the Act or the extension of the Act as the case may be. ( Vide Palanisami Servai v. Kesavan 1 It has therefore to be ascertained as to what were the constructions and improvements made by the revision petitioner herein prior to 31st January, 1973 with effect from when the Act has been extended to the Municipal town of Villupuram. There is no specific finding on this aspect in the order of the learned District Munsif. 5. S. 5(1) of the Act lays down that the compensation awardable under S. 4 shall be the value of the building and trees and of any improvements which may have been made by the tenant on the date of the decree or interim order as the case may be. The respondents have been held entitled to the benefit of the Act by virtue of the order of the Subordinate Judge in the review application, I.A. 344 of 1974 in A.S. 59 of 1972, dated 30th October, 1974. It is only with reference to that date, the value of the improvements effected by the respondents prior to the extension of the Act to the municipal town of Villupuram has to be determined. The order of the District Munsif is not specific on this aspect. The matter has, therefore, to go back to the court below. 6. It is only with reference to that date, the value of the improvements effected by the respondents prior to the extension of the Act to the municipal town of Villupuram has to be determined. The order of the District Munsif is not specific on this aspect. The matter has, therefore, to go back to the court below. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the District Munsif Court, Villupuram for disposal according to law and in the light of the above finding. There will be no order as to costs.