N NATESA NAICKER Vs. VEDAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND Appeal Nos. 1523 to 1528 of 1972 arise out of O.S. Nos. 4686 of 1968, 4683 of 1968, 4684 of 1968, 4084 of 1968, 5566 of 1968 and 5036 of 1968, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The only defendant in O.S. No. 4685 of 1968 has preferred S.A. No. 198 of 1973. The third defendant in O.S. No. 4084 of 1968 has filed S.A. No. 199 of 1973 independently, while defendants 1, 2 and 4 have preferred S.A. No. 1526 of 1972, aforementioned.

(2.) IN short, all the appellants who profess themselves to be tenants entitled to be protected under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Act), have preferred the above second appeals, since the Courts below have negatived their claim holding that they are only sub-tenants and as such, the plaintiff-Vedagiri who is the present purchaser of the suit property, is entitled to evict them and get the necessary declaration he has prayed for in the various suits.

(3.) ACCORDING toVedagirithere is absolutely no privity of contract between these persons and himself, that these parties came as tenants only under Subadrammal and thatVedagirinever derived any title or interest in respect of the suit land from the said Subadrammal. On the other hand,Vedagiricontended that Balsubramaniam purchased the suit lands from Srirengammal, and not from Subadrammal, and that excepting that she had the agreement to purchase the suit lands and other lands belonging to Srirengammal under Exhibit A-4, Subadrammal never became the owner of the suit lands. No doubt, Balasubramaniam is the nominee of Subadrammal to purchase the suit lands and other lands, but that will not, in any way make Balasubramaniam shoulder the liabilities of Subadrammal. Balasubramaniam became directly the purchaser from Srirengammal and whatever liabilities Srirengammal had in the suit properties, would pass on to Balasubramaniam and then toVedagiriwho is the purchaser from Balasubramaniam. The appellants herein are not the tenants under Srirengammal and the compromise under Exhibit A-4 in S.A. No. 61 of 1969 never recognized Subadrammal as a tenant entitled to protection under the Act. Even if Subadrammal is recognized as tenant under Srirengammal, entitled to protection under the Act, the appellants herein, independent of Subadrammal, cannot have any right to avail the benefits of the Act as against Srirengammal. Balasubramaniam, andsubsequentlyVedagirican trace their right, title and interest only to Srirengammal and as such the appellants are not entitled to be in possession of the suit lands, nor are they entitled to claim the rights under the Act.