The denial of the landlord's title and the failure to accept the tenancy, either express or implied, by the tenant forfeited their rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act.

The defendants 3 to 10, who lost in the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are the appellants herein. The respondents are the plaintiffs who are the legal representatives of P.L.Shanmugam who originally filed the suit, O.S.No.310 of 1988. The suit was filed by P.L.Shanmugam who died during the pendency of the suit against one Soundarapandian who also died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were impleaded as defendants 3 to 10, who are the appellants herein. The suit in O.S.No.310 of 1988 was filed for declaration and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property and for mesne profits, both past and future.

2. Another suit in O.S.No.291 of 1989 was filed for permanent injunction by Soundarapandian who died during the pendency of the suit. It is necessary to notice the facts of the suit in O.S.No.310 of 1988 for the disposal of the appeal, as the appeal is filed only against the judgment and decree rendered in the appeal in A.S.No.81 of 2001 filed against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.310 of 1988.

3. According to the plaint, the first plaintiff, P.L.Shanmugam was the absolute owner of the suit property and he purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 15.9.1974 from one Rajeswari ammal. It is stated that the first plaintiff was declared as a bona fide purchaser of the suit property in A.S.No.40 of 1981 and A.S.No.82 of 1981, by common judgment dated 9.12.1981. It is stated that the first defendant was in possession of the land as tenant under the previous landlord, Rajeswari ammal and did not attorn the tenancy in favour of the first plaintiff. The first defendant Soundarapandian filed the suit in O.S.No.138 of 1978 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu for specific performance. The trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance, but granted a decree for compensation for the value of the superstructure put up by the first plaintiff. The first defendant herein preferred an appeal as against the decree for rejection of the relief of specific performance by the trial court and the said appeal was dismissed on 9.12.1981. Thereafter the first defendant preferred a second appeal in S.A.No.1847 of 1984 before this Court and this Court also dismissed the second appeal, by judgment dated 8.12.1987, wherein Mr.M.Srinivasan,J. (as His Lordship then was) held that the first defendant herein has not established the oral agreement. As regards compensation, the learned Judge held that the question whether the first defendant would be entitled to compensation for the value of the superstructure under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act has not been gone into in the said proceedings and that is a matter to be decided in a proceeding which may be initiated by the first plaintiff herein. It was also held that the only remedy that is available to the first defendant is to remove the superstructure put up by him and he is not entitled to claim title as a tenant in respect of the superstructure.

4. A notice dated 9.2.1982(Ex.A-2) was issued by the first plaintiff through his counsel stating that the first defendant did not attorn tenancy in favour of the first plaintiff from the date of his purchase and the first defendant also failed to pay the rent in spite of several demands made. It is also stated that the first defendant had gone to the extent of denying the title of the first plaintiff in the suit property. It is stated that the first defendant is liable to pay the entire arrears of rent and he has committed wilful default in payment of rent. It is also stated that the property is required for the personal use of the first plaintiff to carry on business. The notice was therefore issued calling upon the first defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property and also to pay the entire arrears of rent.

5. The first defendant, in his reply dated 15.2.1982 (Ex.A-3), has denied the title of t