Tenant continuing in possession despite termination of tenancy.

The defendants are the appellants The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of his title and possession. The first defendant took the “A” Schedule property on lease by a rental agreement dated 29th April, 1933, in favour of the plaintiff and his elder brother Srinivasa Pillai on a rent of Re. 1 per month. The tenancy was liable to be terminated by one month’s notice There was a partition between the plaintiff and his brother in 1935 under which he plaintiff became the owner of the northern half of the suit property described in the plaint B Schedule The first defendant continued to occupy the northern portion belonging to the plaintiff but surrendered possession of the southern portion to Srinivasa Pillai. The first defendant continued to pay the rent to the plaintiff till about 1952. In 1958 the plaintiff terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 30th June, 1958. The first defendant then set up title in himself, and the plaintiff again sent another notice terminating the tenancy on the ground of the first defendant claiming title to the property.

The first defendant in his written statement contended that he entered into possession of the property about 45 years back. But he did not agree to pay any rent. As the plaintiff asked the first defendant to execute a document, the first defendant executed such a document without knowing its contents. He also executed another document ten years thereafter without knowing its contents. According to the 1st defendant, the plaintiff received from him a sum of Rs. 820 in three instalments. agreeing to sell the entire “A” Schedule property. The first defendant also pleaded that in case he fails to prove title to the property in his possession and if he is found to be a tenant, he is entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. He also pleaded that the suit filed without proper notice as required under the said Act is liable to be dismissed.

The trial Court found that there was no such sale as alleged by the defendants and that the title was with the plaintiff. It also found that even though the defendants have failed to prove their alleged purchase, there was sufficient evidence to show that the first defendant was a tenant under section 2 (4) of the City Tenants Protection Act and as such entitled to protection under the said Act. It therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. On appeal the lower appellant Court negatived the sale set up by the first defendant and found title in favour of the plaintiff. It also, found that as the defendants denied the title of the landlord and as the tenancy was terminated, the defendants cannot claim the benefits under the said City Tenants Protection Act and holding that the first defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the said Act, it decreed the suit.

In this Second Appeal, it is contended on behalf of the defendants that the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the first defendant was not entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants’ Protection Act. The facts found are that by virtue of the lease dated 29th April, 1933, the first defendant entered into the land and continued to be a tenant till his tenancy was terminated by a notice by the plaintiff on 30th June, 1958, forfeiting the tenancy due to the tenant setting up independent title Section 2 (4) of the City Tenants’ Protection Act (Madras Act III of 1922). defines ‘tenant ‘as meaning tenant of land liable to pay rent on it, every other person, deriving title from him, and as including persons who continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy. The definition of the word Tenant’ was amended in 196o, but as the suit was filed in 1958, we are not now concerned with the amendment. The definition of the word “Tenant” includes (i) tenant of the land liable to pay rent, (ii) every other person deriving title from him and (iii) persons who. continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy.

As the tenancy of the first defe