AUNDIAPPA NADAR Vs. GNANAMBAL AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These two appeals have been preferred by the tenant against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 20-8-1996 in S.A. No. 1922 of 1984 and C.R.P. No. 4646 of 1984, reversing the judgment of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 25-4-1982 in A.S. No. 225/81 and C.M.A. No. 172/81 and restoring the judgment of the IInd Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 23-7-1980 in O.S. No. 2990 of 1970 and I.A. No. 12515 of 1970. The matters arise under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (Act 3 of 1922) (hereinafter called the 'Act'). That Act, as amended by Act 19/55, confers certain rights on the tenant of the land to purchase the same if he or his predecessor-in-interest has put up a structure before 12-9-55, on the leased land. On the facts of the case before us, the suit was filed in 1970 by the respondent and such a right was indeed available to the tenant as per the amendment by Act 19/55, provided the tenancy in land was created on or before 12-9-1955 and superstructure was also put up by the tenant before 12-9-1955 and before the tenancy of the land was terminated. Though the appellant in this case exercised such an option, the trial Court rejected the same and decreed the eviction suit filed by the respondents-landlords while the first appellate Court dismissed the suit. The High Court set aside the appellate Court's judgment and restored the trial Court's judgment decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent-landlord. That is how the tenant is in appeal before us.

(3.) The suit for eviction was filed by the respondents on 22-6-1970 after issuing a notice of termination of tenancy dated 12-12-68 in respect of a rectangular piece of land, B-Schedule 25' x 40' and for injunction against the appellant from constructing a structure in an area around the northern and eastern side of B-Schedule (which piece was called C-Schedule) wherein the tenant was making preparation to put up further constructions instead of removing the existing constructions already made as directed in an earlier suit of O.S. No. 2051/65 which was then pending in Second Appeal. The sum total of B and the C-Scheduled is described as A-Schedule (25.75' x 142'). In other words if C is the encroached portion, eviction in regard not only for the tenanted portion B (25.75' x 40') but also for C, - in all for A (25.75' x 142') was sought. Damages of Rs. 4500/- as Rs. 125/- per month were also claimed.