The heirs of a cultivating tenant must also satisfy the test of personal cultivation to claim the benefits of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

RAMASWAMI, J:- The defendants are the appellants. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession and for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,466-10 as and by way of mesne profits from 1st April, 1963, till date of suit and for future mense profits. The plaintiff is the son of one Vythilinga Reddiar. The plaintiff, his father and paternal uncle constituted a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff's father leased the properties under a registered lease deed dated 9th July, 1965 (Original of Exhibit A-1) to Purushotham Reddiar, father of defendants 1 and 2, for a period of seven years. The rent payable was fixed at Rs.1,000 and 54 bags of paddy per year. There were defaults in payment of the rent. Suits were filed for recovery of the same and ultimately the rents has been recovered for the entire period of seven years. The present suit claim was for the period subsequent to the expiry of the lease under Exhibit A-1, viz., 1st April, 1963 to 15th June, 1964 the date of suit. There was a partition on 21st October, 1959 under the original of Exhibit A-4 in the family of the plaintiff. Under this partition, the plaintiff was allotted the suit properties. The plaintiff claimed that the tenancy in favour of the father of the defendants expired by efflux of time on 31st March, 1963, and on and from 1st April, 1963, the possession of the defendants was without any legal right and that the plaintiff was entitled to possession on and from 1st April, 1963. The plaintiff issued a notice on 24th March, 1964 (Exhibit A-2) demanding the defendants to surrender possession. The defendants, by their reply dated 31st March, 1964, claimed that they were cultivating tenants and entitled to the protection of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, and raised certain other contention also. The plaintiff has thereupon filed the present suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore.

2. After a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendants were not tenants after 31st March, 1963, that there was no tenancy by holding over, that the defendants were not cultivating tenants entitled to the protection under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, that in any case, even if they were considered to be cultivating tenants, in view of the denial of title of the landlord, the defendants were not entitled to the protection under the Act. On the question of notice, the learned Subordinate Judge held that since the case was one of termination of tenancy by efflux of time, no notice was necessary. The learned Subordinate Judge also decreed the claim for arrears of rent as prayed for and directed that future profits be determined under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. The defendants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Court.

3. Pending the suit, the defendant filed O.P. No.10 of 1964, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, under Section 3(3)(a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for permission to deposit the rent for the period from 1st April, 1963 to 31st March, 1964, and filed another petition O.P. No.10 of 1965 for permission to deposit the rent for the period from 1st April, 1964 to 31st March, 1965. On these petitions, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, held that the defendants herein, who were the petitioners before him, were cultivating tenants and that therefore they were entitled to file the petitions. As against the Order in O.P. No.10 of 1964 and O.P. No.10 of 1965, the plaintiff in the suit has filed Civil Revision Petitions Nos.642 of 1966 and 641 of 1966 respectively.

4. The first question for consideration in this appeal is whether the defendants are cultivating tenants within the meaning of Madras Act XXV of 1955. The lease deed Ex.A-1 covered the period from 1st April, 1956 to 31st March, 1963 and it was in favour of the defendant's fa