Ramaswami, J.- These are appeals by the defendants in O.S. Nos. 867, 1109 and 1411 of 1962 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, against the decrees directing eviction from the suit plots.

2. The plaintiff in all the suits is the Receiver appointed by the High Court in O.S.A. No. 52 of 1960 in respect of the suit properties and other properties belonging to one late P. S. Narayana Iyer and his sons. The plaint allegations were as follows: The suit properties were comprised in R.S.Nos. 132,244/ 2 and 133. They belonged to the estate of P. S. Narayana Iyer. They were purchased by Narayana Iyer and his son Krishna Iyer. These lands were cultivated by Narayana Iyer and Krishna Iyer through one Laksh-mana Naicker. Krishna Iyer predeceased his father. After the death of Narayana Iyer, there were disputes relating to the estate and a suit was filed in the High Court and in those proceedings, the plaintiff was appointed as Receiver. The plaintiff on enquiry found that the defendants had trespassed into the properties subsequent to the death of Narayana Iyer in 1952. Lakshmana Naicker gave a statement to him, in which he admitted that Narayana Iyer was cultivating the properties through him and that after his death, on account of the pending litigation, no one gave necessary advance for cultivating the lands and that therefore he discontinued the cultivation and the properties remained vacant. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on account of the absence of the owners, Lakshmana Naicker appears to have allowed the defendants to trespass into the properties in 1952 or 1953. After issuing notices calling upon the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession, the plaintiff has filed the present suits. praying for a decree directing the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession and for mesne profits.

3. The defendants contended that Lakshmana Naicker was not cultivating the lands, under Narayana Iyer and Krishna Iyer, but Lakshmana Naicker was in occupation of the lands in his own right and as-owner of the properties he had leased out portions of the properties to the defendants and that the defendants had put up pucca superstructures thereon and were enjoying the same. They further contended that they were entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act.

4. These suits were tried along with some other suits. All the suits were decreed. Only the defendants in these three suits, have filed the present appeals and the defendants in the other suits have not filed any appeal.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants in the appeals contended that Lakshmana Naicker was the owner of the properties and that he leased out the properties to the defendants and that as lessees they have put up the superstructures, and that therefore they are entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act. Alternatively he contended that they have bona fide made improvements by filling up pits, in the suit plots and putting up superstructures thereon and that therefore under section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act they are entitled to be paid compensation for the improvements effected before they are ordered to be evicted from the suit properties.

6. The plaintiff claimed that Narayana Iyer and his son Krishna Iyer were the owners of the suit properties and that the owners were cultivating the lands through one Lakshmana Naicker and that the said Lakshmana Naicker was not the owner of the suit properties. In support of the claim of title, the plaintiff relied on Exhibits A-1 and A-4 to A-6 and the oral evidence. Exhibit A-1, dated 27th March, 1944, is a sale deed in the name of Krishna Iyer, under which the properties comprised in R.S.No.244/2 and 133 were purchased The plaintiff further contended that R.S. No. 132 was purchased by Narayana Iyer on 26th January, 1941. But, the document in respect of the same has not been pro-duced. Exhibit A-4 series, the corporation tax receipts and Exhibit A-5 series and Exhibi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document