Tenant held liable to payment to landholder.

This second appeal by the plaintiff Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam, Devakottai, by its Trustees, raises an interesting question of law as to the impact of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) on the rights of a tenant of land from the landholder for building purposes, where the tenancy commenced prior to 1948, and the building erected by the tenant on the land, continued in the tenant’s occupation on the date of , the notification of the estate under the Act. The second appeal is connected with three revision petitions also by the appellant as petitioner, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cases were heard together both in the trial and appellate Courts. The suits being for arrears of rent, and of small cause nature in view of the value of the claim, three of them have been brought up to this Court in revision. Lease of vacant sites had been granted by the appellant to the several defendants, the defendants being permitted to put up buildings thereon at their own cost, the superstructure being removable by the tenants at the expiry of tenancy. They were, however, prohibited from sub-letting or assigning the superstructure. The sites thus leased are in the under-tenure village of Kallambirambu which was notified and taken over by the Government on 7th September, 1949, under the provisions of the Madras Estates Abolition Act (XXVI of 1948). The appellant Devasthanam was the landholder of the village and there is no dispute, that the site, the subject-matter of the suit out of which the second appeal arises, is situated on what was the eastern bund of the Vellaiyyan Oorni. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 1,091.84 as rent for the site from 1st April, 1960 up to 30th November, 1961. The first defendant is the contesting defendant and there is no dispute that the origin of the possession of the defendant was as tenant under the plaintiff, nor is it disputed that the amount claimed as rent has not been paid. But the defence to the action is that the suit-site along with the building put up by the tenant thereon had vested in the defendant and the title of the plaintiff as a landlord got extinguished with the notification of the estate under the Abolition Act, XXVI of 1948.

Some more facts which are relevant have to be set out. The tenancy under the plaintiff admittedly commenced even prior to 1948, but it is beyond dispute that the tenant has subsequent to the notification of the estate also been executing lease deeds in favour of the plaintiff and subsequent to the notification the plaintiff had filed a small cause suit for arrears of rent and secured decree thereon. Revision taken to the Court by the tenant failed but there was no determination of the question of title. After the notification of the estate the plaintiff applied for ryotwari patta for the suit-site amongst other properties as private land and the Assistant Settlement Officer decided that the item was Vellayan Oorani poramboke. The plaintiff did not claim the disputed site as house-site or building-site but as part of item 14 in the application-Vellayan Oorani. No doubt, as noticed by the lower appellate Court on the date of the notification of the estate, the tank bund did not exist as such but was being used as site for location of various shops. From the decision of the Settlement Officer, there was an appeal to the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, and on the dismissal of the appeal, the matter was brought up to this Court by way of a writ petition and that also failed. It is stated that the devasthanam may secure the site under section 19-A of the Act. Of course, these proceedings cannot preclude the devasthanam from asserting its right to the property, if it can under section 18 of the Abolition Act and that is the right that is now being asserted. The lower appellate Court records as an admission that the devasthanam claimed that it had only the landlord’s interest in th