Applicability of benefit under Section 9 to tenants claiming title in himself.

Sivasubramaniam, J.

1. These second appeals and the civil revision petition have come before us on a reference made by Ratnavel Pandian, J. (as he then was) by his judgment dt. 8-9-1980 made in Second Appeal Nos. 1461 to 11466 of 1980. As the point of law involved in the other matters is also same, they are also posted along with the said second appeals.

2. One Bhargavakula Nainargal Sangam, represented by its President, Dhandapani filed the suit in O.S. Nos. 133 of 1978, 135 of 1978, 137 of 1978, 139 of 1978/141 of 1978, 143 of 1978 and 145 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Vellore for eviction of the defendants from the respective suit properties on the ground that they are the tenants under plaintiff Sangam. It is relevant to point out at the outset that the said suits are filed after the petitions filed before the learned Rent Controller, Vellore were dismissed on the ground that the properties in question are vacant sites and therefore, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petitions. The plaintiff shall be referred to as the landlord and the defendants shall be referred to as the tenants for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff-Sangam is the appellant in Second Appeal Nos. 14 61 to 1466 of 1980 and the various respondents in these appeals are the tenants in respect of certain portions of the suit properties belonging to the Plaintiff-Sangam.

3. The landlord plaintiff terminated the tenancy in favour of the tenants/respondents by means of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed suits for recovery of possession. The tenants in their respective reply notices as well as in their written statements, denied the title of the landlord and claimed ownership to both the land and the superstructure in their respective possession. Further, they filed written statements claiming title to the properties by adverse possession on the ground that they have been in possession of the said properties for more than the statutory period. Subsequently, the suits were transferred to the file of the District Munsif, Vellore. During the course of the trial the tenants filed additional written statements claiming the benefits under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Act, since the provisions of the said Act were extended to Tiruvannamalai with effect from 31-3-1973. The learned District Munsif, Vellore on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties dismissed all the suits on the ground that the tenants are entitled to the benefits of the Act and that no notice under Section 11 of the Act was given to them. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the landlord preferred appeal in A.S. Nos. 3 to 9 of 1979 on the file to the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai and the same were also dismissed. The learned Judge relying on a decision of V. Ramaswami, J. (as he then was) reported in R. Govindaswamy v. Bhoopalan and Ors. (1977) 2 M.L.J. 206 and the other decision of Sethuraman, J. in Kandaswami Gounder v. Kandaswamy Gounder 92 L.W. 511 confirmed the common judgment and decrees of the trial Court. The landlord being aggrieved against the said judgment has preferred the present second appeals.

4. When the second appeals came up before Ratnavel Pandian, J.(as he then was), it was argued before him that the view taken by the lower court is erroneous, in view of the decision of Ramaprasada Rao, CJ. in Boologanathan v. Govindarajan following an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Veeraswamy Naicker v. Alamelu Ammal . It was brought to the notice of the learned Judge that there were some other conflicting decisions. A specific reference was made to the decision reported in Madhava Raw Naidu v. Sri Gangadeeswarar Temple (1946) 2 M.L.J. 285, wherein it was held that the tenancy was determined by denial of landlord's title. This decision was followed by another Division Bench of this Court consisting of Veeraswami, J. (as he t