JUDGMENT:- Second Appeal Nos. 1523 to 1528 of 1972 arise out of O.S. Nos. 4686 of 1968, 4683 of 1968, 4684 of 1968, 4084 of 1968, 5566 of 1968 and 5036 of 1968, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The only defendant in O.S. No. 4685 of 1968 has preferred S.A. No. 198 of 1973. The third defendant in OS. No. 4084 of 1968 has filed S.A. No. 199 of 1973 independently, while defendants 1, 2 and 4 have preferred S.A. No. 1526 of 1972, afore mentioned.

2. In short, all the appellants who profess themselves to be tenants entitled to be protected under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Act), have preferred the above second appeals, since the Courts below have negatived their claim holding that they are only sub-tenants and as such, the plaintiff-Vedagiri who is the present purchaser of the suit property, is entitled to evict them and get the necessary declaration he has prayed for in the various suits.

3. Suffice it to say that Vedagiri purchased, under Exhibit A-2, 3 grounds from one Balasubramaniam. The appellants have erected huts in the said 3 grounds of property and they claimed protection under the Act. The vendor of Vedagiri, one Balasubramaniam, as nominee of D.W. 5 by name Subadrammal, had purchased a moiety in 10 acres of land including the suit lands, under Exhibit A 1, from one Srirengammal. D.W. 5 who nominated Balasubramaniam to have the purchase in his name from Srirengammal got the right to purchase the suit property and other properties as per the agreement entered into between Subadrammal and Balasubramaniam by way of compromise in S.A. No. 61 of 1969, on the file of this Court as evidenced by Exhibited A-4.

4. Vedagiri, who purchased the properties under Exhibit A-2, instituted O.S. Nos. 4084, 4683, 4684, 4685 and 4686 of 1968 for an injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the land marked in the respective plaints, for recovery of vacant possession of the land and for recovery of damages.

5. Kanniammal, the second defendant in O.S. No. 4683 of 1968 filed by Vedagiri, and Natesa Naicker, the only defendant in O.S. No. 4686 of 1968 and fourth defendant in O.S. No.4084 of 1968, filed O.S. Nos. 5036 and 5566 of 1968 respectively for directing Vedagiri to remove the fences put on the suit and and also for damages for having criminally trespassed on the lands in which they alleged that they have the right to be in possession.

6. Thus, it is seen that all the parties in the abovesaid second appeals, agitated their respective rights in the suit lands measuring 3 grounds purchased by Vedagiri under Exhibit A-2. As regards the title of Vedagiri in respect of the suit lands, it has been established beyond all doubt that Vedagiri purchased the suit property under Exhibit A-2. The main question that was agitated by the respective parties was as to whether the defendants in O.S. Nos. 4084 and 4683 to 4386 of 1968 and the plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 5036 and 4466 of 1968 are ‘tenants’ under Vedagiri entitled to protection under the Act, or not.

7. According to Vedagiri there is absolutely no privity of contract between these persons and himself, that these parties came as tenants only under Subadrammal and that Vedagiri never derived any title or interest in respect of the suit land from the said Subadrammal. On the other hand, Vedagiri contended that Balsubramaniam purchased the suit lands from Srirengammal, and not from Subadrammal, and that excepting that she had the agreement to purchase the suit lands and other lands belonging to Srirengammal under Exhibit A-4, Subadrammal never became the owner of the suit lands. No doubt, Balasubramaniam is the nominee of Subadrammal to purchase the suit lands and other lands, but that will not, in any way make Balasubramaniam shoulder the liabilities of Subadrammal. Balasubramaniam became directly the purchaser from Srirengammal and whatever liabilities Srirengammal had in the su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document