- (1.)After hearing counsel for both the parties we are of the opinion that the matter must go back to the High court since certain relevant aspects are not clear from the record before us.
(2.)Defendants are the appellants. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction in the court of District Magistrate, Salem being O. S. No. 1472 of , 1972. The plaintiffs' case was that they had let out the portion marked ABCD admeasuring 20 ft. x 16 ft. , delineated in the plaint plan, on lease to the defendants for a period of three years. At the end of three years the plaintiff sent a notice terminating the defendants' tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants not only did not vacate the land but also encroached upon an adjoining portion and have thus come into possession of a larger area MNOP. They are not 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.
(3.)The defence of the appellants was that they were the tenants of the entire area marked as MNOP and that the tenancy had commenced in January 1955 and not on 6/05/1957 as alleged by the plaintiffs. They stated that they had also put up a thatched construction on the said land at a cost of Rs. 3,000. 00 and that they are entitled to the benefit of Madras City Tenants' Protection Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). They also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act in the said suit.