Admission of relationship of landlord and tenant for being tenant is necessary.

Srinivasan, J.

1. The Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of possession against the appellants. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act filed by the appellants herein. The trial Court granted a decree for eviction in favour of the respondent and it was affirmed by the appellate Court. The petition filed by the appellants under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act was dismissed by the trial court and that was affirmed by the appellate Court.

2. The short facts relevant are these: The respondent purchased the suit property from one T. Srinivasan alias Chellappa under a document dated 17.4.1974 for Rs.4,000. He issued a notice dated 14.5.1974 terminating the tenancy of the appellants with the expiry of the month ending on 16.6.1974. The tenancy month is admittedly from 17.4.74 to 16.5.1974. Consequently, notice was issued terminating the tenancy with 16.6.1974. The notice is marked as Exhibit B-2. There was no reply to the said notice by the appellants, though they received the same on 20.5.1974. The respondent filed O.S. No. 3793 of 1974 for permanent and mandatory injunction as against the appellants with reference to a construction put up by the appellants. The contention of the respondent was that it was unauthorisedly put up at the time of the institution of the said suit and it should be pulled down. That suit was contested by the appellants herein. In the written statement filed by them, the following plea was raised in paragraph 6 therein:

These defendants submit that there is no juridical relationship of landlord and tenant between the present plaintiff and the defendant.

The appellants also contended that they had acquired certain rights as against the previous owner and he did not have any right to alienate the property in favour of the respondent herein ignoring the rights of the appellants. That suit, no doubt, ended in favour of the appellants herein. But that is not a matter of any consequence in the present proceedings.

3. The present suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession. It is stated clearly in paragraph 7 which relates to cause of action that the respondent become entitled to recover possession on the termination of the tenancy by issue of notice dated 14.5.1974 and the subsequent denial of the respondent's title, in the written statement filed by the appellants in O.S. No. 3793 of 1984. I have already referred to the fact that both the Courts below held against the appellants. When the Second Appeal came up before me in the first occasion on 4.8.1986, I referred the matter for decision by a Division Bench as there were conflicting pronouncements on the question whether a tenant whose tenancy was forfeited by his denial, of the title of the landlord would be entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act. A Division Bench considered the matter in detail and answered the question in the negative. The Judgment of the Division Bench is reported in Bhargavakula Nainargal Sangam v. Arunachala Udayar (1990) 1 L.W. 46. The relevant observation of the Division Bench reads as follows:

A cumulative effect of the provisions would lead to the inference that protection is available only to the statutory tenants whose possession is protected under the provisions of a statute. We are unable to find any provision in the Act to consider the tenant who has denied the title are statutory tenant. We have come to the conclusion from the preamble and the definition of "tenant" found in the Act that the benefit is intended to be given only to certain class of tenants who claim right under a tenancy agreement and not to the persons who claim to be owners or set up title on others.

4. After answering the question referred to them, the Division Bench directed the present Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition to be posted before a single Judge for dis