Actual physical possession is essential for a tenant to claim benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act, and lack of such possession negates entitlement regardless of historical tenancy claims.

1.This civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgement of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing C. M. A. No. 188 of 2000 preferred against the order passed in I. A. No. 16309 of 1997 in O. S. No. 14544 of 1996 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The respondent, Spencer and Co. Limited, the plaintiff, filed the suit against the petitioner / defendant for a decree directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the land, to pay a sum of Rs.1,06,000/- by way of damages for use and occupation from 01-06-1980 to 30-09-1980 and to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.26,250/- per month by way of damage and use and occupation from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession and for costs.

3. The petitioner / defendant filed I. A. No. 16309 of 1997 under the provisions of S.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act offering to purchase the property for a reasonable price to be fixed by the Court. The respondent / plaintiff filed a counter mainly alleging that the petitioner / defendant was not a tenant on the relevant period and the petitioner / defendant was not in actual possession of the property as a tenant, whereas one Ban Service Et Lubrication was in actual possession of the property running a petrol bunk, and therefore, the petitioner / defendant is not entitled to the benefits of S.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act .

4. The learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who tried the I. A., dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner / defendant is not in actual possession of the property and one Ban Service Et Lubrication is in actual possession of the property and therefore, the petitioner / defendant cannot be held as a tenant entitled to the protection under S.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act . Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner / defendant preferred C. M. A. No. 188 of 2000 and the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissed the C. M. A. on the ground as found by the learned VI Assistant Judge. Aggrieved over the said judgment, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. Heard both the sides. The case of the petitioner is that their predecessors - in - interest have been tenants under the respondent / plaintiff from 01-01-1995 onwards; the petitioner's predecessors - in - interest M/s Caltex (India) Ltd.. have, after taking possession of the vacant site on 01-01-1995, put up superstructure thereon for the purpose of carrying on their business in the sale of petroleum products; in pursuance of nationalization of foreign oil companies, the Central Government took over the assets of M/s Caltex (India) Ltd. and the petitioner Corporation, a Central Government Enterprise, stepped into the shoes and took over the business and premises of the erstwhile M/s Caltex (India) Ltd.; the petitioner has been tendering the rent for the subject site to the respondent as a tenant thereafter and a lease was executed and registered by the respondent on 17-04-1979 for the period from 01-01-1975 to 31-12-1979 and thus the petitioner is a tenant of the suit site. According to the petitioner, they received suit summons on 10-07-1981 for ejectment filed by the respondent in respect of the suit property, and therefore, it has become necessary for the petitioner to invoke the provisions of S.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act as amended and prayed to direct the respondent - landlord to sell the site to the petitioner.

6. Th