ANNAVI MOOPAN Vs. SILAMBAYEE AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 554 of 1972 in the Court of District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli is the appellant. The respondent herein field the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit property. According to him, the suit site belonged to him and the defendant took it on lease by executing a registered lease deed on 21st August, 1964, marked as Exhibit A -1, for putting up a superstructure on the site, agreeing to remove it at the end of the lease period of three years and to give vacant possession. The rent payable was Rs. 12 per annum. As the defendant did not pay the rent and as the period of lease had expired, the plaintiff came forward with the present suit for the relief mentioned above. The appellant -defendant contested the suit stating that the land was a common property belonging to twenty -two persons, that the plaintiff could not have leased out more than the extent to which he was entitled, that the defendant has been in occupation of 25 cents of land while the plaintiff would be entitled to only 5 cents and that the lease deed Exhibit A -1 had been obtained under false representation. It was also stated that the defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the property for twenty -two years and that he had not paid any rent to any body at any time. The right of the plaintiff to evict the defendant was thus challenged.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit with costs on the strength of the finding that the plaintiff was entitled to possession and that there was a valid and proper notice to quit.

(3.) Against that judgment, there was an appeal which came before the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli. During the pendency of the appeal, an additional written statement was filed in which it was stated that the defendant was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that he was a cultivating tenant and lessee, besides being an agricultural labourer, and that he was therefore entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act (XL of 1971). It was pointed out that the possession of the defendant could not be disturbed by any landlord. The learned Subordinate Judge went into the question whether the defendant was a 'tenant' and was liable to be evicted. He held that the defendant had entered into the schedule site as a tenant by executing Exhibit A -1 lease deed and that he was liable to give vacant possession after due and valid notice was given under the original of Exhibit A -2. He held also that the Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1971 did not apply to the present case, because, the defendant had denied the title of the landlord over the schedule site. The result was that the appeal was dismissed, Against this judgment, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendant.