ANNAMALAI GOUNDAN Vs. VENKATASAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether it is open to a person, against whom proceedings have been instituted for eviction under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, to raise a plea based upon section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, for resisting the application.

(2.) THE first respondent herein is the owner of the lands which were let to the petitioner by a lease deed dated 19-11-1952. The term in the lease deed was for a period of two years and it expired on 18-11-1954. The annual rent agreed upon was a sum of Rs. 166. The Assistant Collector, Hosur, against whose order this revision petition is filed, entertained an application for eviction at the instance of the first. respondent on 2-7-1957. The allegation made in the petition by the landlord-first respondent was that the petitioner had fallen into arrears in the matter of payment of rent since November, 1954. Some amounts had been admittedly paid unto 25-9-1956; but it was not disputed that on the date of the application for eviction there were arrears of rent payable by the petitioner.

(3.) THE defence set up by the tenant first petitioner was that some time after the expiry of the lease period, that is to say, in May 1965 (the date 24-5-1958 given by the Assistant Collector in his order being incorrect), a registered agreement was entered into between the parties, namely, the first respondent to the application for eviction and the landlord the petitioner therein, whereby the landlord agreed to sell leased properties to the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs. 800 to be paid within an agreed date. It is not disputed that consideration passed for this agreement and the landlord did not dispute the execution of this agreement. It is further admitted that, within the date fixed for execution of the sale deed, the petitioner, in whose favour the agreement of sale was executed, had tendered the balance of price due to the landlord, who improperly refused to accept the amount and execute the sale deed. It is also common ground that the period of limitation for enforcing the contract by specific performance had not expired either on the date when the application for eviction was preferred or on the date when it was ordered.