MANICKAM Vs. DHARMAPURAM ADHEENAM AND MUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal arises under the following circumstances:

(2.) THE defendants 2 to 5 who were brought on record, filed a written statement to the effect that inasmuch as G.O.Ms.No.1998, Home, dated 12.8.74 is under challenge and the operation of the same has been stayed, no civil suit will lie. THE defendants are agriculturists as defined under the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971. THEir main source of livelihood is the income derived from the agricultural operations. THE suit property is Kudiyiruppu as defined under the Act. THErefore, a civil suit is not maintainable. It is incorrect to state that the defendants had fallen into arrears of rent. On the contrary, all the arrears of rent had. been paid properly. Even otherwise, there is no valid notice to quit. Lastly it was urged that the suit was not maintainable in view of Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1978.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff took up the matter in appeal in A.S.No.105 of 1979 to the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayuram. The appellate Court held that the defendants were not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971. In any event, in so far as the defendants did not raise the plea of benefit under the Kudiyiruppu Act before the Rent Controller, they would be estopped from raising the plea before the appellate Cdurt. The further finding was that the Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1978 would not apply to a case of payment of rent for building and therefore the contrary finding rendered by the learned trial Munsif was held to be incorrect. It was found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the arrears of rent and possession of the property. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. AGGRIEVED by the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by defendants 2 to 5.