The burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish the nature of the tenancy and entitlement to statutory benefits.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Fair and Final orders dated 28.09.2012 and made in C.M.A.No.41 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Court, Villupuram confirming the Fair and Final Orders dated 30.07.2008 and made in I.A.No.604 of 2001 in O.S.No.224 of 2001 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam and prays to set aside the same in so far as they went against the Petitioner herein.

Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2012 and made in A.S.Nos.30 and 31 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Court, Villupuram confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2008 and made in O.S.No.224 of 2001 and O.S.No.43 of 2005 respectively on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam and prays to set aside the same in so far as they went against the Appellant herein.

Cross Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2012 made in A.S.No.30 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Court, Villupuram confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2008 and made in O.S.No.224 of 2001 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam and notice served on 01.03.2013, prays to set aside the same in so far as they went against the Appellant herein.)

Common Order:

These batch of Second Appeals, Civil Revision Petition and Cross Objection are disposed by a common order.

2. O.S.No.224 of 2001 was presented by one Vedhavalli Ammal Arakattalai, Tindivanam. The suit was presented against Sivalingam, the appellant in S.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2013 and petitioner in CRP(NPD)No.1250 of 2013. The suit being one for ejectment. A written statement was presented by the defendant wherein he claimed several reliefs including the relief that since he had put up the superstructure, ejectment suit should not be decreed.

3. Apart from that, he filed an independent application in I.A.No.604 of 2001 claiming the relief under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the -Act-). This application was stoutly opposed by the Trust.

4. During the time of trial, the following issues had been framed by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.224 of 2001:

“1) Is it true that the deed of tenancy came to an end in 1998?

2) Is it true that a separate tenancy agreement was made for the shop on 1.4.2001?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for in the plaint?

4) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?”

5. The following issues were framed in O.S.No.43 of 2005:-

“1) Is it true that the plaintiff was only offered site alone for rent?

2) Whether the superstructure was built by the plaintiff?

3) Whether the “B” schedule property was leased in favour of the plaintiff?

4) Whether the plaintiff continues to be a tenant in the status of “tenant holding over”?

5) Whether the suit has cause of action?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

7) To what other relief plaintiff is entitled to?”

After a detailed trial of both the suit as well as the application, the suit was decreed by a judgment dated 30.07.2008 and the application under Section 9 was dismissed on the very same date.

6. Against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.224 of 2001, an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.30 of 2008. Against the order passed under Section 9 of the Act, a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed in CMA.No.41 of 2008.

7. Mr.Sivalingam, the tenant, filed O.S.No.95 of 2001, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Tindivanam. The relief sought for in th