Kasliwal, J. - (1.) This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 2-4-1980. The Hazarath Syed Shah Mian Sakkaf Khadiri Thaikal through trustee S. S. Peeran Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit on 15-9-1967 for possession of a plot of land measuring 124' X 20' situated in the town of Tanjore. The original tenant was M. Ramaswamy Pillai who is now dead and is represented through his legal representatives who are the appellants in the present appeal. The plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation that the defendant took the suit property on lease for a period of 2 years from 1-2-1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- and executed a rent deed on 17-11-1955. It was further alleged that the defendant was in occupation. of the site as a tenant ever since 1-2-1955 and after the expiry of the period of 2 years fixed in the rent deed, the defendant was continuing as a tenant holding over on the same terms. The defendant raised a superstructure on the land in suit. Till October, 1966 the superstructure was made up of mud walls and thatched roofing. But suddenly, the defendant renewed the roofing of the front portion into one of calicut tiles without the knowledge or permission of the plaintiff. It was further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff wanted to construct pucca terraced shops on the site for which the necessary licence had been obtained from the Municipality and as such the property in suit was needed for the plaintiff's own use.
(2.) The defendant filed a written statement on 7-11-1967 and inter alia alleged that the site was originally in the occupation of Damodara Nair and one Panchapakesan as lessees. Damodara Nair had put up a pucca mangalore tiled roofing over the back portion of the land. Panchapakesan and his father Sundaram Mudaliar had put up a thatched structure on the front portion of the land. The defendant had purchased the superstructures from both the above persons in or about the year 1942. The defendant used the back portion for his residence and the front portion for carrying on bicycle and, motor-cycle repairing shop. It was further alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff had recognised the occupation of the defendant and had also accepted him as a tenant and was receiving the rent from the defendant since 1942. In 1955 the plaintiff wanted a registered rent deed and as such a registered lease deed was executed on 17-11-1955. It was in fact, a renewal of the existing tenancy. The defendant also took the plea that under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, it was open to the tenant to claim compensation or pray for conveyance of the site on a price to be fixed by the Court. The defendant also took a plea that the suit was not maintainable as the property formed part of a Minor Inam under the Minor Inams Abolition Act 30 of 1963, but we are not concerned with this objection now.
(3.) The defendant also filed a separate petition under S. 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 6-11-1967 and prayed for fixing a price for the suit site and to convey the property on payment of the price to be fixed by the Court. In reply to this petition under S. 9, a stand was taken by the plaintiff that the property being a wakf property as such it was inalienable. It was also pleaded that the lease of the site under the lease deed of 1955 was invalid. It was also pleaded that even if the tenant was found entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants'Protection Act, he can claim the benefit only so far as the residential portion in the back side was concerned and not in respect of the entire property. The learned Munsif after remand of the case to him, by a common judgmentdated 10-3-1976decreed the suit for possession in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the petition of the tenant filed under S. 9 of the Act. The learned Munsif held that the lease deed dated 17-1 1 1955 being invalid, the tenant was not entitled to take benefit of S. 9 of the Act. The tenant then filed appeals against the judgment in the suit for possession as well as miscellaneous appeal against the dismissal of his petition filed under S. 9 of the Act. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The second appeal in both the matters were also dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment dated 2-4-1980. The tenant aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court has filed the abovementioned two appeals.;