KOTHANDARAMASWAMY DEVASTHANAM Vs. GOPAL NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaint iff in O.S. 14/78 before both the forums below has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) THE Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession and for damages for use and occupation on the allegation that the Plaintiff-Devasthanam is the owner of the suit site and that the 1st defendant has taken on lease the said site under a registered rental deed dated 19.12.1960 for a period of five years. THE 1st defendant, without the consent of the plaintiff, mortgaged the property to one Muthukumarasami, father of the 2nd defendant, contrary to the contents of the lease deed. Hence he is liable to be evicted from the premises by reason of forfeiture. A notice was issued to the Plaintiff on 22.7.1977 to the defendants calling upon them to deliver possession of vacant site, to which the defendants sent a reply dated 1-8-1987 with incorrect particulars. Hence the suit.

(3.) IN the instant case, the lease is admittedly in the year 1960. On the date when the suit was filed in 1978, the Act as amended by Act 19 of 1955 was not applicable as the tenancy was not prior to the date of the amendment of the Act, namely, 12.9.1955. Hence, no right is to be claimed under the Act as amended by Act 19 of 1955. The G.O. extending the Act, as it is, will not give any right to the tenant nor could it be said that since the extension of the provisions of the Act is on 31.1.1973, the tenant of the land prior to 1973 will be entitled to right.