A. Arunachala Naicker vs Ghulam Mohamed Sahib

Venkatadri, J.—This appeal arises out of execution proceedings in O. S. No. 283 of 1945, a suit instituted by the respondent herein for

eviction against the appellant herein In respect of a small extent of property situated in Triplicate, Madras City. Both the trial Court and the

appellate Court passed a decree for possession of the suit property. While the land lord-respondent was taking proceedings to execute the decree,

Act XIX of 1955 amending the Madras City Tenants'' Protection Act came into force, The appellant herein has filed the application C.M.P. No.

1693 of 1955 to permit him to purchase the land as per the provisions of the said Act. Naturally, the question arose in the Courts below whether

the appellant was a tenant under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act as amended by Act XIX of 1955. The contention of the landlord is that

the suit property was leased only for agricultural purposes and not for putting up any superstructure. On the other hand, the contention of the

appellant is that, no doubt, the land was originally leased at the inception for agricultural purposes and that he subsequently put up a superstructure

which entitles him to claim benefits conferred by Act XIX of 1955, that the landlord is not therefore entitled to evict him and that the landlord

should either allow him to purchase the property or to pay him compensation for the superstructure erected on the suit property. Both the Courts

below found that the land was leased only for agricultural purposes and that he was not entitled to ask the landlord to sell the suit land to him or

pay him compensation for the superstructure. Being a question of fact, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the lower appellate Court.

The appellant is always at liberty to remove such moveable property like the pump and also the superstructure namely a thatched shed put up by

him in the suit property. Learned Counsel raised another objection that once the Court has found that the land is leased for agricultural purposes,

he cannot be evicted in these proceedings but only under the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. But he has not raised

this point in the Courts below and as such I cannot decide whether he is entitled to be evicted under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection

Act. If he has got any remedy, it is for him to take appropriate measures to protect himself from eviction. The appeal is dismissed, but no costs.

No leave.