(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.390 of 1991 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry is the appellant herein. THE Plaintiff, the respondent herein filed the suit for ejectment on the ground that the lease period had expired and the defendant failed to pay the rent from October 1989. THE defendant filed R.C.O.P.No.41 of 1990 before the Rent Controller, Pondicherry seeking permission to deposit the rent before the Court. THE petition was dismissed. Inspite of the dismissal, the defendant did not pay the rent to the plaintiff and hence she is liable to be evicted. THE plaintiff claimed title to the property through his father.
(2.) THE defendant filed written Statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant had been paying the rent to the plaintiff's father and recently she came to know that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and therefore she did not pay the rent to the plaintiff. THE defendant had set-up title in favour of one Muslim Darga. As the Plaintiff has no title to the suit property, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit. Further, it seems that a plea has been raised on behalf of the defendant that she is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Pondicherry Non-agricultural Kudiyiruppudars (Stay of Eviction Proceedings) Act 1980.
(3.) MR.Lakshminarayanan, Counsel for the appellant contended that since both the courts below have categorically found that the defendant is a lessee under the plaintiff and earlier under his father, the lower courts ought to have granted the benefit under Section 4 of the Pondicherry Non-agricultural Kudiyiruppudars (Stay of Eviction Proceedings) Act 1980. As per the provisions of the said Act, the suit itself would not lie and as such the suit ought to have been dismissed. The conduct of the defendant in filing other applications as well as the denial of the title of the plaintiff will not take away the statutory benefit conferred on her under the Pondicherry Act 2 of 1981.