ERANTHANKANDY PONATHIL SANKARAN Vs. CHIRUKANDOTH MUNDAYODAN NARAYANI AMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has preferred this second appeal attacking the judgment of the third Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S. No. 97 of 1971, whereby he allowed the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the District Munsif of Mahe, who dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the suit house from the defendant as well as for arrears of rent due by him as tenant. According to the plaintiffs, the suit house and the paramba on which it stands belong to the plaintiffs on kanam - -kuzhikanam right, and the house was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 under a registered lease deed, dated 7th April, 1955. Subsequently, under an oral agreement dated 7th April, 1957, the lease was renewed for a further period of six months on a monthly rent of Rs. 4. After the expiry of the lease, the defendant was holding over without paying arrears of rent since 7th May, 1968. When the plaintiffs called upon the defendant to vacate the buildings, the defendant applied to the Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Mahe, under the Mahe Land Reforms Act for registration of himself as a kudikidappukaran, but the Deputy Tahsildar dismissed his claim, whereupon the defendant preferred a revision petition to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahe, who dismissed it on the ground that the defendant was not a kudikidappukaran as defined in the Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs issued a registered notice, dated 5th November, 1970, calling upon the defendant to vacate, but the defendant failed to comply with, the demand. The plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the suit for recovery of the Schedule property and of rent arrears amounting to Rs. 136 with, costs.

(2.) THE defendant, in his answer, while admitting that he was a tenant liable to pay monthly rent of Rs. 4, contended that he had paid rent upto November, 1969, and that as he had thatched the house in 1970 at a cost of Rs. 50, he was entitled to set off the same towards the arrears of rent. He also contended that he had thatched the house at his own cost in 1971 and spent Rs. 66.33 on that account, and that this amount was also liable to be set off against the rent payable by him. He further contended that neither he nor his wife was possessed of any property or land to build a homestead upon, that he is a kudikidappukaran within the Mahe Land Reforms Act and that he is not liable to be evicted from the house.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif, Mahe, found that the order of the Deputy Tahsildar, dismissing the petition filed by the defendant on the ground that he is not a kudikidappukaran within the Mahe Land Reforms Act was not binding upon the civil Court. He, therefore, proceeded ;to discuss at length the evidence adduced by the parties and held that the defendant was not possessed of any landed property where he could erect his homestead and that consequently he is a kudikidappukaran within, the Mahe Land Reforms Act and that he is not liable to be evicted from the suit house. He further held that inasmuch as the plaintiffs were liable to thatch the house every year at their own cost and it was admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendant had thatched the house in 1970 and 1971, at his own cost, he was entitled to set off the cost of thatching towards arrears of rent due and if the set off were allowed, the defendant would not be liable to pay any amount by way of arrears of rent. In this view, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court with costs.