CHINNAMERKATHIAN Vs. AYYAVOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions for grant of leave under Article 133 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the constitution arise out of proceedings taken by the respondents, the landlords, under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The respondents purchased the property from the previous owners, Nachaiammal and her sons under two sale deeds Ex. P. 6 dated 22-1-1960 and Ex. P. 7 dated 9-3-1960. On 25-5-1960 the prior vendors had issued a notice to the tenants, the petitioners herein, claiming the arrears of rent due from them for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and also threatening eviction. Under Ex. P. 5 dated 5-12-1960, the arrears of rent due from the tenants to the vendors were assigned to the respondents, the purchasers who filed the petition for eviction on 2-1-1961 on the ground that the petitioners herein, the tenants, were guilty of wilful default in the payment of rent.

(2.) THE tenants resisted the eviction proceedings on the ground that there were no arrears, that they had paid the same to the previous landlords, the vendors, and that even if they were in arrears, the purchaser who purchased the property subsequently could not rely upon the arrears accrued due prior to the purchase as a ground for eviction. For the period 1960-61, the tenants contended that there was diminution in the extent of land leased out to them and that there should be a corresponding abatement in the rent. The Revenue Divisional Officer overruled these objections of the tenants, holding that the tenants were in arrears in a sum of about Rs. 4800 and that they should be evicted if they did not pay the arrears within six weeks from the date of the order.

(3.) THE tenants preferred revision petitions against that order and in view of the importance of the points of law and the objections raised by the tenants in the revision petitions they were posted before a Bench. We dismissed the revision petitions holding that the respondents were entitled to obtain an order for eviction.