Tenant lost protection under the Act.

Bellie, J.

1. The defendants are the appellants. They lost their case in both the Courts below. The suit relates to a land, 10.78 acres in two survey numbers. It originally belonged to one Madanagopal Naidu. The two defendants were tenants under him. The five plaintiffs purchased the land from Mandanagopal. At the time of sale there was standing casuarina trees. The plaintiffs filed two suits (may be because of two survey numbers, two suits) on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali for their half share in the standing casuarina trees. Later on the suits were compromised as per which the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a sale agreement Ex.A.1 dated 10.5.1977. According to this the defendants agreed to purchase and the plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 63,000. On the date of agreement the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 3000 by way of advance. As regards the balance of Rs. 60,000 it was stipulated that the defendants shall pay it in three equal instalments of Rs. 20,000 and the first instalment of Rs. 20,000 shall be paid on or before 30.9.1977 and the second instalment of Rs. 20,000 as to be paid by 30.1.1978 and thereupon the defendants shall obtain from the plaintiffs a sale deed on stamp papers. The third instalment of Rs. 20,000 was to be paid on or before 10.5.1978 and then they should get the sale deed registered. It was further stipulated that in default of payment of the first instalment the defendants shall pay to the plaintiffs a further sum of Rs. 3,000 before the second instalment becomes due and in default in payment of second instalment and getting sale deed signed on stamp papers the defendants should pay the plaintiffs damages for use and occupation of the properties and surrender possession. In case the plaintiffs commit default on their part (it is rather curiously stipulated that) they should pay back twice the amount received by them and execute a registered sale deed. It is further stated in the agreement that the defendants are allowed to continue in possession of the lands along with the standing casuarina trees.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that the defendants failed to perform their part of the agreement and therefore they are entitled to take possession from the defendants with past and future mesne profits.

3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that there was no default on their part and on the other hand there was breach committed by the plaintiffs only and they further contended that in any account they are not liable to be evicted because their possession is protected under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. They also pleaded that they are entitled to be in possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit on consideration of the issues framed held that the defendants committed default in performance of their part of the contract. He rejected the defendants' contention that they are entitled for protection under the Cultivating tenants Protection Act. He further disallowed their plea that they are entitled to be in possession under the principle of part performance as laid down under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. He therefore held that they are liable to be evicted and decreed accordingly. He also decreed for past and future mesne profits but left it open for fixing the quantum under a separate proceedings.

5. The defendants appealed. The learned District Judge who heard the appeal agreed with the findings of the trial Court and therefore he dismissed the appeal.

6. The concurrent finding of the Courts below that the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract is not seriously disputed here. On going through the two Judgments I am quite sure that the said concurrent finding is unassailable. The point that is seriously argued by Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Counsel appeared for the appellants-defendants is that may be the defendants committed default in performance