VEERASWAMY NAICKER Vs. ALAMELU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants appeal against a reversing judgment arising form a suit for a declaration of the title of the respondents and for recovery of possession of a site measuring 92 ft by 36 ft as Adambakkam. On 29-4-1933, the first defendant took a lease of the A schedule property from the plaintiff and his brother on a certain rental. In 1935 at a partition between the brothers, the plaintiff became the owner of the northern half of the property owner of the northern half of the property covered by the original lease. Thereafter the first defendant surrendered the southern half but continued to occupy the northern half. Since the lease was terminable by a month's notice, the plaintiff terminated it by a notice dated 30-61958. The first defendant then denied the plaintiff's title on the ground that he had purchased the northern half of the site from the plaintiff. The plaintiff by another notice purported to terminate the tenancy on the ground that the first defendant denied his title and claimed title in himself. The plaintiff's suit followed which was resisted on two grounds, (1) title in himself by purchase from the plaintiff, and (2)he was entitled to protection under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants protection Act, 1921. Both the courts below have found against the claim of title by the first defendant, but they have differed on the question whether he was entitled to the protection of the Act, the lower appellate court holding that he was not.

(2.) THE second appeal was originally before Kailasam J. , who considered that if madhava Rao Naidu v. Sri Gangadareswarar Temple, 1946-2 Mad LJ 285: (AIR 1947 Mad 125) had decided that a tenant continuing in possession after termination of tenancy had no right, it would not be in conformity with the third class of the definition of a tenant in Section 2 (4) of the City Tenants Protection act, 1921. On that view the learned Judge referred the second appeal for disposal by a Division Bench and that is how it comes before us.

(3.) THE Madras City Tenants Protection Act was enacted for the express purpose of giving protection to tenants, who in municipal gowns and adjoining areas in the state of Madras have construed building on others' lands in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they paid a fair rent for the land. The first defendant would claim to have put up certain huts on the land and sought protection under the Act, Section 9 provides for statutory protection of tenants in possession, as defined by S. 2 (4) of the Act. The definition is as follows: