PATTU IYER Vs. ARUNACHALA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S. No. 382 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif, Mayuram are the appellants. They filed the suit for recovery of possession of their 1/3rd. share in the suit properties bearing T. S. No. 1388/2 situate in Thirumanjana Street, Thiruvilandur, Mayuram Town, as well as for past and future rents. Both the Courts below had held that they are not entitled to seek recovery of possession of the property but they are entitled to claim only arrears of rent. The plaintiffs canvass the correctness of the decisions of the Courts below in this second appeal. Both the Courts below have given different reasons for their decision. The trial Court held that the defendant, having taken on lease a vacant site and having erected a building thereon is entitled to the protection of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (18 of 1960) in view of the decision of this Court in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Babu Sahib : (1964) 1 MLJ 110. The lower appellate Court, however held that the defendant is not only entitled to the protection of the said Act but that he is also entitled to the protection of the Madras Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act as he is an agricultural labourer.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the suit property was leased to the defendant under Exhibit A -1 dated 16th July, 1958 by Gangadhara Iyer, the father of the first plaintiff and the husband of the second plaintiff. The suit property was then sub -divided and the middle portion come to be allotted to the plaintiff. The defendant took the lease for a non -agricultural purpose on a monthly rental of Rs. 2 and put up a shop therein. The plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the defendant by a notice Exhibit A -2 dated 30th August, 1962 calling upon the defendant to surrender possession of the suit property after removing the superstructure which he had erected on the suit lands. The defendant had sent a reply under Exhibit A -3 dated 13th September. 1962 claiming rights under the City Tenants Fraction Act. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the above suit in ejectment against the defendant.

(3.) THE defendant contended that he became a tenant of the suit property long before the execution of Exhibit A -1 dated 16th July, 1958 under a kailetter, Exhibit B -4, dated 14th August, 1956 on a monthly rental of Rs. 18.0 and that in fact he has been in possession of the suit property even earlier from January, 1956. The defendant in his defence claimed the benefit of (i) the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, (ii) the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (iii) the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act and (iv) the Madras Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act.