Point of Law: Under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, a tenant is entitled to maintain the application de hors the pendency or otherwise of the suit for ejectment filed by the landlords

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.52 of 2004, dated 19.11.2004 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.211 of 1996, dated 23.07.2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

1. These appeals and revisions arise out of the suits in ejectment and applications filed under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

2. Since the questions involved are the same and the suits as well as the applications filed under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, have been disposed of by a common judgment, these appeals and revisions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts, that are necessary for disposal of these appeals and revisions, are as follows:

4. The land owners, namely, respondents in the second appeals and revision petitions, have sued for eviction of the tenants claiming that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants were let in possession as tenants of the land and they had put up the superstructure. It is the plea of the land owners that the leases in question commenced in the year 1933 to be precise under a lease dated, 25.09.1933.

5. A suit was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the land owners in O.S.No.525 of 1970 seeking ejectment. In the said suit, the tenants, namely, the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, Vallinayagam Pillai and Velupillai had filed an application in I.A.No.942 of 1970 under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, seeking to purchase the land at a price to be fixed by the Court. However, the said application in I.A.No.942 of 1970 was withdrawn and the Court, while disposing of the suit in ejectment, fixed the value of the superstructure at Rs.20,136.83 and directed the landlords to deposit the said sum as required under Section 4(2) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

6. It is not in dispute that the landlords failed to comply with the said order and the suit in O.S.No.525 of 1970 eventually stood dismissed. However, it appears that the landlords had taken possession of the property in execution of the said decree on 16.02.1978 and the said order directing the delivery was reversed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1347 of 1978 and re-delivery was ordered on 02.12.1980. After the order of re-delivery, the plaintiff in O.S.No.211 of 1996, Krishnammal, purchased a portion in D.No.11, from Bagavathy Ammal and the plaintiff in O.S.No.213 of 1996, Rukmaniammal, purchased the property in D.No.13 and the plaintiff in the O.S.No.215 of 1996, Meenambal, purchased the property in D.No.12.

7. The three purchasers filed three suits as above seeking ejectment of the tenants. Upon service of summons in the said suits, the tenants filed C.T.O.P.Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 1996 claiming benefits under Section 9 of the Act. The suits and the Original Petitions were tried together. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is that, as purchasers of the properties, they are entitled to sue for ejectment after five yeas from the date of the dismissal of the original suit in O.S.No.525 of 1970 under Section 4(4) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. Due notice of termination was also issued.

8. The tenants, apart from resisting the suits on various grounds, initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Act offering to purchase the land as stated supra. As already stated, the suits and the Original Petitions were tried together.

9. At trial, the second plaintiff in O.S.No.211 of 1996, was examined as PW-1, one Ramasamy, husband of Meenambal, plaintiff in O.S.No.215 of 1996, was examined as PW-2, Rukmaniammal, plaintiff in O.S.No.213 of 1996 was examined as PW-3 and one Kanakasabapathy was examined as PW-4. Ex-A1 to Ex-A16 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant in all the suits, Kasthuri @ Veeralakshmi was