ORDER. — This Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur. The petitioner claims to be a legatee under a will of the quondam tenant of the suit land. The quondam tenant, namely, the testator, when he was confronted with a suit for ejectment by the owners of the land, filed an application under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants’ Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act). Before the application could be disposed of, he died. The present petitioner ‘was brought on record as the legatee under the will referred to above. The petitioner wanted to continue the said application under section 9 of the Act and, on the foot of his status as the legatee of the lease-hold rights, claimed such protection after the death of the testator. It was this application which came up for consideration before the lower Court. It may be incidentally pointed out that in an earlier proceedings which was initiated by the respondents but under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the testator referred to above (the quondam tenant), the plea was one of denial of title of the landlord. It was in these circumstances, the parties were referred to a civil suit. This compelled, therefore, the respondents as landlords to file a suit for possession or ejectment. Taking advantage of such a suit in ejectment the petitioner and the quoandam tenant desired to secure protection under the City Tenants Protection Act and, as already stated, filed the necessary application for obtaining relief, to wit, an application under section 9 of the Act. I have already referred to the fact that the quondam tenant died during the pendency of the proceedings and the petitioner brought himself on record as legatee under the will of the quondam tenant and wanted to continue the application under section 9. This application was heard by the Court below which, framed two posers as arising from the pleadings, firstly, whether the uondam tenant, can claim the benefits of the Act. The lower Court, as appellate Court, agreed with the trial Court that the petitioner was not so entitled to the benefits under the Act. As against this, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

2. Though two questions do arise in this Civil Revision Petition, it appears to me to be sufficient, for the purpose of the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, to deal with the question whether the petitioner as legatee of the quondam tenant who denied the title of the respondents in the proceedings, is entitled at all to be treated as a tenant within the meaning of section 2 of the Act, and entitled to the consequential statutory benefits thereunder. If this is held against the petitioner, then it is unnecessary to consider the other question whether the petitioner, as a legatee, pure and simple, would be entitled to such protection.

3. If once a tenant openly denies the title of lessor or pleads jus tertii, then it automatically follows that he would not be considered as a tenant for any purpose whatsoever, as under section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, by such open denial of title or by pleading jus tertii there is a forfeiture of the tenancy and the relationship of landlord and tenant is snapped thereby. The fact that he remains in possession of the premises and pays, what according to him, is rent or is prepared or willing to pay such rent, could only, in the circumstances, be understood as money paid towards damages for use and occupation. Juridical possession, therefore, is the essence for the creation of the relationship of landlord and tenant. Once there is a snapping of the relationship by a voluntary Act of omission or commission on the part of the person in occupation as tenant then, he cannot inconsistently claim such a legal status under any provision of law. A Division Bench of this Court in Veerasami Naic-ker v. Alamelu Ammal1, held that where a person, who continues to be in possession, after the termi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document