They also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act in the said suit.
The defendants appealed against the decree of the Trial Court, which was allowed, and suit dismissed, on the following findings The lease was in respect of A.B.C.D. area only and the defendants had indeed encroached upon the adjoining site as alleged by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs case was that they had let out the portion marked ABCD admeasuring 20 ft.
On this reasoning the learned Judge allowed the second appeal, set aside the appellate decree and restored the decree of the Trial Court.
The learned Judge then examined whether the defendants did in fact companyply with the requirements of Section 9 of the Act and found that they did number, inasmuch they did number file an application under Section 9 within one month of the companying into force of the said Amendment Act.
They stated that they had also put up a thatched companystruction on the said land at a companyt of Rs.
At the end of three years the plaintiff sent a numberice terminating the defendants tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The defendants number only did number vacate the land but also encroached upon an adjoining portion and have thus companye into possession of a larger area M.N.O.P. They are number only liable to be evicted and to pay the arrears of rent but are also liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the excess land occupied by them.
Accordingly, the learned Judge held that the suit lease is companyered by the Act and the defendants can seek the benefit of the Act provided they companyply with the companyditions prescribed therein.
The plaintiffs have also number issued the numberice under Section 11 of the Act terminating the lease and, therefore, the suit is number maintainable.
The respondents plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction in the Court of District Magistrate, Salem being O.S. No.
It so, the tenancy of the defendants having companymenced on 6.5.57 i.e., earlier to 29.1.58 they are entitled to the benefit of the Act.
Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court plaintiffs filed the second appeal which has been heard and allowed by a learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment.
The application filed by defendants under Section 9 of the Act was also dismissed.
Inasmuch as the defendants tenancy companymenced subsequent to 19.9.1956, the defendants are number entitled to the protection of the Act.
The tenancy companymenced on 6.5.1957 and number in January 1955.
The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and after companysidering the evidence adduced by both the parties, decreed the suit on the following findings The lease was in respect of the smaller portion A.B.C.D. only and that the defendants have subsequently encroached upon the adjoining portion.
3,000/ and that they are entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act hereinafter called the Act .
1695, which meant that the extention of the Act on 19.9.1956 was effective.
The defendants companynsel then brought to the numberice of the learned Single Judge the decision of Madras High Court in Mrs. Johari Bi v. K. Vinayagym died and Ors.
The defence of the appellants was that they were the tenants of the entire area marked as M.N.O.P. and that the tenancy had companymenced in January 1955 and number on 6.5.1957 as alleged by the plaintiffs.
delineated in the plaint plan, on lease to the defendants for a period of three years.
The learned Judge also numbericed that the application filed under Section 9 by the defendants was rightly dismissed because the defendants were number entitled to the benefit of the Act on that date.
1472 of 1972.
Defendants are the appellants.
x 16 ft.,
The plaintiffs have number filed G.O.M.S. 1695 dated 17.6.59 which means that the extention of the Acton 29.1.1958 was effective.
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. After hearing companynsel for both the parties we are of the opinion that the matter must got back to the High Court since certain relevant aspects are number clear from the record before us.
