PONNUSWAMY Vs. SACHIDANANDAM PILLAI DEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are by the same two persons Ponnusamy and Rasu who defendants in O.S.No.1014 of 1978, on the file of Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli (against A.S.No.588 of 1981 arises) and plaintiffs in O.S.No.662 of 1980 on the file of Sub Tiruchirapalli (against which A.S.No.445 of 1983 arises). The sole plain-tiff in O.S.No. of 1978 namely, Sachidananda Pillai is the sole respondent in A.S.No.588 of 1981 and 4th respondent in the other appeal A.S.No.446 of 1983. He died pending the appeals and L.Rs. have been brought on record. The suit O.S.No. 1014 of 1978 if for specific performance of Ex.A-7, the deed of surrender of tenancy-right, executed by the first defendant Ponnusamy on. 23.9.1978, whereby the said Ponnusamy after receiving a consideration Rs.10,000 surrenders his right of tenancy over the suit land in favour of the plaintiff Sachidananda Pillai, who subsequently becomes the owner of the suit property under deeds Ex.A-1, dated 9.4.1979, Ex.A-2, dated 9.4.1979 and Ex.A-3, dated 30.1.1980 the respective previous owners of the suit property who are defendants 1 to 3 in the No.662 of 1980 and respondents 1 to 3 in A.S.No.446 of 1983. Though the abovesaid deeds Exs. A-1 to A-3 came into being, a little later, after Ex.A-7, Ex.A-7 itself recites that the plaintiff, even on the date of Ex.A-7, had agreed to purchase property from the abovesaid owners.

(2.) THE other suit O.S.No.662 of 1980 is filed by the appellants about 2 years former suit O.S.No.1014 of 1978, and prays for an injunction against the said former of the suit property and the abovesaid Sachidanandam Pillai, the subsequent purchaser. defence plea in O.S.No.1014 of 1978, is that the said Ex.A-7 was not executed voluntarily and there was no free consent in execution of the same. THE other defence is that defendant Rasu alone is the cultivating tenant of the said land and not the first defendant, contended by the plaintiff Sachidanandam Pillai. THE further defence is that the execution Ex.A-7 is opposed to public policy and hence also Ex.A-7 is not valid. THE same also raised as the plaint allegations in O.S.No.662 of 1980. In this suit, the defendants 3, the erstwhile owners of the suit property, remained ex parte and the pleas of defendant-Sachi-danandam Pillai are almost the same as the plaint allegations O.S.No.1014 of 1978. In the above circumstances, both the suits were taken up together the court below and a common judgment dated 26.8.1980 has been passed. THE below has found that the said Ponnusamy alone was the cultivating tenant of the and not Rasu. It is also found that Ex.A-7 was executed voluntarily by the said Ponnusamy. Further the court below has also found that the execution of Ex.A-7 is not opposed policy. So holding, the court below has granted the decree for specific performance separate possession, against the defendants with costs. But it has negatived the mesne profits made in O.S.No.1014 of 1978. Thus O.S.No.1014 of 1978 has been Consequently O.S.No.662 of 1980 was dismissed with costs. Hence the present appeals the said Ponnusamy and Rasu.

(3.) BUT, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. the abovesaid provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act abovesaid decisions would apply to the present case. These decisions arose out of filed for eviction of the tenants of respective buildings. The relevant enactments specifically say that eviction could be granted under the said respective enactments the grounds specified therein and the rent controller or the other relevant authority above said Rent Control Acts, must satisfy himself before granting eviction that any the grounds specified therein exists. So eviction cannot be granted merely because has agreed to vacate or surrender his tenancy rights. Those decisions cannot be applied the present case which does not arise on a petition for eviction under Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The present O.S.No.1014 of 1978 is a suit for specific performance of Ex.A-7 and so those decisions cannot be applied present case. The term used in the above said preamble to the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act or Sec.3(1) therein, is "eviction" , but what is sought for in the case is not "eviction" . This term " eviction" has been also interpreted by a Division this Court in the decision reported in Kuppammal v. Vellingiri, 70 L. W. 11, wherein context of an application, under" Sec.4 of the above said Act, for restoration of possession, sought for by the cultivating tenant against the landlord, their Lordships have observed follows: " We consider that " eviction " as used in Sec.3(1) and Sec.4(2) is an eviction of this character and that in cases where the tenant surrenders possession voluntarily without compelled to do so by any act or conduct on the part of the landlord, there eviction.....It is sufficient for our purpose to say that there would be no eviction when tenant voluntarily and willingly surrenders possession of the land to the landlord. So the present case is concerned, the admitted facts and the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer are that the surrender was for consideration and was a result of a bargain freely voluntarily entered into between parties. In the circumstances there was no eviction 1st respondent from the holding which he formerly held. In view of our construction of (1), that it contemplates restoration to possession only of cultivating tenants who were possession of their holdings on 1st December, 1953, but who ceased to be in possession the date of the commencement of the Act by reasons of an eviction as specified in several provisions, which we have already pointed out, it follows that the 1st respondent not entitled to an order for restoration to possession under the provisions of Sec.4. Applying the same meaning to the above word "eviction" I also find that no "eviction such has been sought for in O.S.No.1014 of 1978.