Recognition of tenancy by the landlord is essential for a person to be considered a tenant under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act.

1. The legal representative of the petitioner in I.A.No.434 of 2002 in O.S.No.114 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur is the revision petitioner.

2. The suit in O.S.No.236 of 1988 (later re-numbered as O.S.No.114 of 2002) was filed by one Kannappan, claiming to be the owner of the suit property, for recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant in that suit viz., Venkiah alias Venkatesalu was the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the vacant site and without the consent of the plaintiff, the said tenant Venkiah alias Venkatesalu sublet the portion of the land let out to him and also sold the superstructure to one Krishnan Nair and the second defendant Bhakyam, who claims to be the wife of Krishnan Nair, was only a sub-tenant and she is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and the main tenant was not in possession of the property and therefore, the suit was filed for the relief prayed for.

3. The second defendant Bhakyam filed a statement stating that she is a tenant under the plaintiff Kannappan and her husband put up the superstructure and after the death of her husband, she is in possession of the property in the capacity of tenant and as his legal heir, she is entitled to claim the status of a tenant and she also filed application under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act for purchasing the vacant land as she is entitled to the benefits of that Act and the notice of termination was not valid and it was not issued in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. She also filed additional written statement reiterating the same stand that she is a tenant in respect of the site under the plaintiff Kannappan. Bhakyam also filed application under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act with the prayer to purchase the suit property. In the petition, she has stated that she is a tenant under one Venkiah alias Venkatesalu, the first defendant in the suit in respect of vacant site and she has put up superstructure and hence, she is entitled to the benefits of the Act and further stated that there seems to be a dispute with regard to the title of the plaintiff for the schedule mentioned property and only a true owner can pass on valid title to the second defendant and even though the plaintiff had been collecting the rents for the vacant site, the plaintiff has to prove his title to the suit property and she is willing to purchase the land for a price fixed by the court.

4. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff died and the legal representatives were impleaded and they filed counter stating that the revision petitioner herein who was also the petitioner in section 9 application was only a sub-tenant and she was not a tenant under the landlord Kannappan and she is not entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act.

5. The Trial Court accepted the case of Bhakyam and held that she is entitled to the benefits of City Tenants Protection Act and though she was inducted into possession by the main tenant, the landlord viz., Kannappan was collecting rent from her and that is evidenced by Exs.P9, P10 to P17 series and therefore, the Bhakyam is a tenant as per the provisions of section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and she is entitled to the benefits under the Act and directed the court to fix the minimum extent of land and assess the value.

6. This was challenged by the legal representatives of the owner in C.M.A.No.9 of 2003 and the learned first appellate Judge reversed the finding of the Trial Court and held that Bhakyam failed to prove that she was a tenant under the landlord and Ex.P9 was not accepted by the landlord and the money order receipts to show payment of rent was received under protest and that will not confer any title or status of tenant on her and as she was not a tenant under the landlord, she is not entitled to the benefits of th