IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of the term 'tenant' and 'heir' under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act to further the Act's objective of protecting tenants from eviction and enabling them to purchase the land in their occupation.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order made in O.P.No.101 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Court, Namakkal and District dated 20.10.2008 as confirmed by the fair order and decretal order made in C.M.A.No.461 of 2011 dated 04.02.2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal and District.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner by confirming the order passed by the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 under Section 9 r/w 3 of The Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (Hereinafter referred to as “Act” for brevity) exercising option to purchase the petition mentioned property.

2. The petition mentioned property originally belonged to one Perumal Gounder and respondents 4 to 6 are his legal representatives. Yet another son of Perumal Gounder namely Periya paiyan @ Ramasamy and respondents 4 and 5 were declared as insolvents and pending said proceedings Periya Paiyan @ Ramasamy died leaving 4th respondent as his only heir. Thus, the petition mentioned property vested with official receiver 7th respondent herein. The 7th respondent sold the petition mentioned property to petitioner herein under Sale Deed dated 20.08.1976. Thus, the petitioner is claiming title over the petition mentioned property.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed Original Petition in O.P.No.101 of 1992, on the file of Subordinate Court, Namakkal, under Section 9 r/w 3 of Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 exercising option to purchase the petition mentioned property on the ground that the 1st respondent was tenant of the vacant site belonged to Perumal Gounder. It was his case that 1st respondent entered the petition mentioned property as a tenant of the vacant site and had been paying monthly rent of Rs.6/- to Perumal gounder. He also claimed that he had put up present super structure over the vacant site for residential purpose and had been residing there from 1966. Thus, he claimed benefit under the above said Act.

4. The Court of first instance held that respondents 1 to 3 were entitled to benefit of Madras City Tenants' Protection Act and allowed the application by holding respondents 1 to 3 were entitled to benefit of Section 9 of the said Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.461 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Court, Namakkal and the same was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the orders passed by the Courts below, raised the following points:-

- The respondents 1 to 3 set up oral lease agreement between 1st respondent and Perumal Gounder and in the absence of written agreement, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to the benefit of the Act. It is his case that a lease for one year or more shall be by way of written instrument as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and in the case on hand, the respondents 1 to 3 are claiming leasehold right from 1966 for more than 40 years and hence, in the absence of written lease arrangement, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot claim themselves as tenant and seek benefit of the Act. In support of the said contentions, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 1.

- The respondents 1 to 3 failed to produce any evidence to show that they had paid rent either to Perumal gounder or his legal representatives.

- As per the case of the respondents 1 to 3, the 1st respondent was tenant under Perumal Gounder and pending Original Petition filed by him, he became untraceable and therefore, respondents 2 and 3, his wife and son, were allowed to proceed with the original petition. Since origin