Readiness and willingness for performance of part of contract is necessary for benefit in the property.

The appellant in the second appeals is the defendant in the suits, namely O.S.Nos.308 and 310 of 1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, laid by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for consequential past and future profits.

2. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, they are the owners of the suit properties. Even though the appellant/defendant is the tenant in the suit properties for monthly rent, the respondents/plaintiffs terminated the tenancy by 30.6.1999 and directed the appellant/defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit properties on 1.7.1999. Since the appellant/defendant refused to do so, the respondents/plaintiffs laid the said suits.

3.1. The appellant/defendant resisted the suits contending that he entered into two agreements of sale on 3.2.1996 with the respondents/plaintiffs to purchase each of the suit properties for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, when he was already in possession of the suit properties as a tenant. After paying an advance of Rs.56,000/- towards each of the sale agreements even dated 3.2.1996, the appellant/defendant paid a sum of Rs.19,000/- towards each of the suit properties and thus paid Rs.75,000/- and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.4,75,000/- towards each of the suit properties within six months, on receipt of which, the respondents/plaintiffs agreed to execute and register the sale deeds in favour of the appellant/defendant.

3.2. The further case of the appellant/defendant is that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration towards each of the suit properties, but the respondents/plaintiffs were not prepared to execute and register the sale deeds in favour of the appellant/defendant.

3.3. The appellant/defendant, inter alia, contended that even though he could not get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, as he was already in possession of the suit properties on the date of sale agreements, namely, 3.2.1996.

4. Upon the above rival contentions, the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, framed the following relevant issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the notice issued by the plaintiffs/ respondents terminating the tenancy is valid?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past and future profits?

5. To substantiate their contentions, the second plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked two documents as Exs.A1 and A2, of which Ex.A2 is the notice of termination dated 24.5.1999, terminating the tenancy by 30.6.1999 and requiring the appellant/defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit properties on 1.7.1999, and the appellant/defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked two documents as Exs.B1 and B2, of which Ex.B1 dated 3.2.1996, is the sale agreement entered into between the appellant/defendant and the respondents/plaintiffs towards each of the suit properties.

6. Appreciating both the oral and the documentary evidence referred to above, the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, by judgments and decrees dated 8.11.2000, held that the notice of termination dated 24.5.1999, marked as Ex.A.2, is valid in law and that the appellant/defendant is not entitled to stake any claim based on Ex.B1 sale agreements even dated 3.2.1996 with respect to each of the suit properties, as he was not ready and willing to perform his part of obligation as per Ex.B1 and consequently, he is not entitled to claim any benefit under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and hence, decreed the suits as prayed for.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees dated 8.11.2000, the appellant/defendant preferred appeals in A.S.No.7 of 2001 and A.S.No.8 of 2001 before the learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam, against the judgments and decrees in O.S.No.308 and 310 of 1999 respectively.

8. The learned Principal District Judge, considered th