Order.-This is a Civil Revision Petition against an order of the learned Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai) allowing the appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Thirumangalam who dismissed the petition of the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent.

2. The tenant who is the revision petitioner herein contended inter alia that he is in possession in pursuance of an agreement of sale in his favour, dated 24th November, 1970 executed by the respondents herein and Kannan, the son of the first respondent and the brother of the second respondent and that, in any event, as he did not pay the rent during the period alleged under the impression that he is in possession in pursuance of the agreement of sale in his favour, all the terms of which he had performed, his default was not wilful. He also contended that not only the respondents herein, namely, Gnanaprakasi Ammal and Jayapalan but also Kannan are the owners of the building, that he was inducted into possession by all the three and that the petition for eviction by two of them alone is not maintainable.

3. The learned Rent Controller found that, even though there was default, it was not wilful default, because the tenant bona fide thought that his possession is traceable to the agreement of sale in his favour and dismissed the petition, for eviction. The learned Appellate Authority, purporting to rely on a decision of this Court in Munuswami Goundar and others v. Erusa Goundar1allowed the appeal, holding that in proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (to be referred hereafter as the Act), the tenant cannot rely on the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and hold the agreement of sale as a shield in defence to the action for eviction under the Act. This view of the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained.

4. In Munuswami Goundar and others v. Erusa Goundar1, a Bench of this Court has merely held that the transferee cannot ask for a declaration of title. It has not negatived the right of the defendant in possession to hold the agreement of sale as a shield to protect his possession. On the other hand, speaking for the Bench, Veeraswami, CJ., has held that section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act does confer some right on the transferee, if the conditions of that section are fully satisfied, that this is a right to have the transferor or any person claiming under him debarred from enforcing against a transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, that this right can be enforced by the transferee always as a shield and not as an independent claim either in the capacity of plaintiff or defendants, that is to say, he cannot ask for title basing his claim on the fact that he was fulfilled the conditions of section 53-A, that he can, as a shield, ask for protection of the right envisaged by section 53-A by debarring by getting am injunction against the transferor and those claiming under him from interfering with his possession. If the transferee who has fulfilled the conditions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act can rely on the agreement of sale in his favour as a shield in a suit for eviction and can even ask for an injunction to protect his possession as against the transferor, there is no reason why he should not rely on the agreement of sale in similar circumstances as a shield against the landlord in proceedings for eviction instituted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. There appears to me to be no difference in principle between a defence to an action in proceedings under the Act and a defence to an original suit for eviction.

5. In the instant case, the agreement in favour of the revision petitioner, dated 24th November, 1970 to convey the building in the occupation of the rev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document