CHINNAKANNU PANDITHAR Vs. KASTURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the unsuccessful tenant under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1927.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: THE petitioner became a tenant of the land measuring an extent of 400 sq. feet in the year 1956. THE land then belonged to one Duraisamy Mudaliar. As per the tenancy agreement dated 12. 4. 1956 with the said Duraisamy Mudaliar , the petitioner put up a hut and continued to be a tenant under the said Duraisamy Mudaliar on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 and 8 anna s. In 1984, the respondent attempted to put fence, the petitioner objected to the same. At this stage, the petitioner sent a notice under Exhibit R-1 to remove the fence. For the said notice, the respondent sent a reply under Exhibit R- 2, stating that there was no trespass on 24. 6. 1984 and the property was a vacant land comprised in T. S. No. 53/2b. Gengaiamman Koil Street, Puliyur , Kodambakkam and was purchased by the respondent from the rightful owners under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1 of 1984 dated 19. 4. 1984. THErefore, the petitioner was called upon not to commit trespass against the rightful owner. For the said reply, a rejoinder was sent by the petitioner under Exhibit R-3. In Exhibit R-3 the petitioner claimed the rights under the Tamil Nad u City Tenants Protection Act, but it is also stated that after a search in the registrar's office, there was no sale deed dated 19. 4. 1984 registered as document No. 1/84 in the Sub-Registrar's Office. THE petitioner has called upon the respondent to furnish details about the sale deed. Based on the allegations contained in Ex. R - 3, the courts below wrongly held that the petitioner has denied the title of the respondent and therefore not entitled to the protection under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. Hence he has filed this revision in this Court.

(3.) IN the first instant case, the petitioner had an excuse, because in the reply sent by the respondent under Exhibit R-2 the respondent gave a wrong document number. However, in the subsequent suit she has chosen to give correct document number and date. If that is so, why the petitioner has not chosen to accept her as the landlady is ununderstandable. The failure to recognise the respondent as a landlady cannot but be a deliberate omission with the object evading payment of rent. He has all along maintained the stand that he is tenant, but at the same time not a tenant under the respondent. Even after the filing of the suit for enjectment he has not chosen to change his attitude. From the aforesaid circumstances.I do not find any justification for interfering with the finding of the respondent. The first and foremost requirements for availing the benefit under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection act, 1927 is that a ready recognition of the title of the person against whom the tenant asserts his right. IN this case, the same is absent. Therefore, in that sense the petition under Section 9 of the Tamil Nad u City Tenants'Protection Act, 1927 is not maintainable.