AZIZUNNISSA BEGUM Vs. V. GOVINDAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Azizunnissa Begum, seeks to revise the decree and judgment in Ejectment Appeal No. 11 of 1968, reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court in M.P. No. 633 of 1966 in Ejectment Suit No. 11 of 1966, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The petitioner sued for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he was a tenant in respect of a portion of Paimash No. 311/1 and 311/2 in Kodambakkam, measuring 63 X 27, after terminating the tenancy. The respondent filed M.P. No. 633 of 1966, in the ejectment suit, claiming the benefit of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent pleaded that originally one Arumugham Chettiar was in occupation of the site as lessee of the petitioner, that on 20th September, 1954, he sold the superstructure and his leasehold rights to one Antony, and that Antony in his turn sold the superstructure and the leasehold rights to him (the respondent) on 12th January, 1958. But the petitioner contended that Arumugham Chettiar was a lessee in respect of one ground, that he surrendered the lease in December, 1956, that Antony became a fresh tenant of a smaller extent, that the said Antony appears to have sublet the plot to the respondent, that the respondent had been making payments on behalf of Antony, that on coming to know of it, she filed a suit for an injunction against the respondent in the City Civil Court restraining him from putting up any construction and that she filed the present suit for ejectment after the said suit for injunction was dismissed.

(2.) BOTH the Courts below have rejected the case of the petitioner that Arumugham surrendered the lease and that the petitioner entered into a fresh lease with Antony. The trial Judge found that the respondent is in possession as a tenant from 1958, he having purchased the superstructure and the leasehold right from Antony, who in his turn had purchased the same from Arumugham. The lower appellate Court agreed with this finding and found that the original tenancy commenced long prior to 1955. But, on the question of the interpretation of Section 9 of the Act, the trial Judge held that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Section 9 of the Act, but the lower appellate Court came to a different conclusion. Hence the petitioner has come forward with this civil revision petition.

(3.) THUS persons who had a derivative title from the original tenant could ipso facto claim to be tenants under the old definition. But they could no longer do so under the new definition. A subtenant has been specifically excluded under the new definition. But, as pointed out in the Bench decision of this Court in Parthasarathi v. Syamalamba : (1964) 1 MLJ 250