V RAJU Vs. ANGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was a notice prior to the filing of the suit but it is not one under Sec. 11 of the Act, as according to the plaintiff, the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the Act as he had already denied the title of the plaintiff in another proceeding O. S. No. 323 of 1984. In the written statement, the defendant did not raise any specific plea that notice under Sec. 11 of the Act ought to have been given. But, on the other hand, a vague plea is raised in paragraph 7 of the written statement that the notice issued by the plaintiff was not valid in law.

(2.) AGAIN in paragraph 9, it is stated that there is no legal notice issued by the plaintiff according to law. Construing the said written statement as one raising the present question argued by learned counsel for the appellant, I have no hesitation to hold that the view taken by the courts below is correct in law. The appellant having denied categorically the title of the plaintiff to the suit property, is not entitled to claim the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act and consequently, there is no question of the suit being invalid for want of notice under Sec. 11 of the Act. I have considered the question of denial of title disentitling the person concerned to the benefits of the Act in Subborayan v. Devadoss Nadar, (1991)2l. W. 355. I have held that when there is a denial of title, the person who has denied the title of the landlord cannot claim the benefits of the enactment.