Tenant can file suit against order of eviction.

1. The defendants in O.S.No.329 of 1987 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode are the appellants. The suit filed by the plaintiff was to restore possession of the suit property to him and also for recovery of Rs.5,100 towards the value of the articles unauthorisedly removed by the defendants and for costs.

2. In the body of the plaint, it is said that the defendants are the owners of the building in door No.19,Prakasam Street, Erode town. It is a lodging house consisting of several rooms and the plaintiff has taken room No.212 on a monthly rent of Rs. 120 and has been carrying on his banking business in that room. He was paying rent regularly.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants were trying to evict the plaintiff by illegal and unlawful means from June, July of 1983. He also filed a Rent Control Application No. 8 of 1984 against the plaintiff for eviction, on the file of the Rent Controller, Erode. The plaintiff also filed a counter and the case was adjourned from time to time. While the eviction petition was pending, the defendants gathered men and materials and successfully prevented the plaintiff from entering into the room on 30.8.1986.

4. Even though the plaintiff filed a petition before the police authorities, they advised the defendants to seek appropriate civil remedies for eviction and the said petition was closed. The plaintiff also presented a representation before the District Collector that in spite of the warning given by the police, the plaintiff was prevented from entering into the building and occupying the room from 13.8.1986 onwards.

5. It is further stated that the defendants also threw away the furniture, account books and other articles were removed, the room was totally ransacked and even the telephone which was installed in the room and which stood in the name of his brother was disconnected. It is under the above circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the above suit to recover possession of the building for which he is a tenant.

6. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they admitted that the plaintiff was in occupation of the room, but he voluntarily surrendered the room to the defendant and they have not forcibly entered into the room and removed the belongings of the plaintiff therefrom. They also contended that the suit is barred by limitation.

7. According to them, if it is a case of forcible dispossession, the suit ought to have been filed within a period of six months from the date of dispossession and the suit, was filed only after the expiry of six months. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

8. The trial Court took oral and documentary evidence. On the side of the plaintiff Exs. A-1 to A-14 have been marked. The plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and two independent witnesses were also examined on the side of the plaintiff. The first defendant got himself examined as D.W.1. There is no documentary evidence on the side of the defendants.

9. The main issue raised before the trial Court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to occupy the building which was in his possession. The trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a tenant and the contention that the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered the building or room to the defendants is not true and the defendants have forcibly entered into the possession of the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to get back the room which he was occupying and at the same time it was also held that there is no evidence regarding the alleged damages to the plaintiff.

10. When the appeal was taken by the defendants before the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.17 Of 1991 on the file of the District Judge, Erode, the lower Appellate Court confirmed all the reasonings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal with costs.

11. The concurrent judgments are assailed in the second appeal. Notice of