ORDER
Abdul Wahab, J.
1. This revision has been preferred by the unsuccessful tenant under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1927.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner became a tenant of the land measuring an extent of 400 sq. feet in the year 1956. The land then belonged to one Duraisamy Mudaliar. As per the tenancy agreement dated 12.4.1956 with the said Duraisamy Mudaliar, the petitioner put up a hut and continued to be a tenant under the said Duraisamy Mudaliar on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 and 8 annas. In 1984, the respondent attempted to put fence, the petitioner objected to the same. At this stage, the petitioner sent a notice under Exhibit R-1 to remove the fence. For the said notice, the respondent sent a reply under Exhibit R- 2, stating that there was no trespass on 24.6.1984 and the property was a vacant land comprised in T.S.No. 53/2B. Gengaiamman Koil Street, Puliyur, Kodambakkam and was purchased by the respondent from the rightful owners under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1 of 1984 dated 19.4.1984. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon not to commit trespass against the rightful owner. For the said reply, a rejoinder was sent by the petitioner under Exhibit R-3. In Exhibit R-3 the petitioner claimed the rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, but it is also stated that after a search in the registrar’s office, there was no sale deed dated 19.4.1984 registered as document No. 1/84 in the Sub-Registrar’s Office. The petitioner has called upon the respondent to furnish details about the sale deed. Based on the allegations contained in Ex.R- 3, the courts below wrongly held that the petitioner has denied the title of the respondent and therefore not entitled to the protection under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. Hence he has filed this revision in this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the courts below have erred in holding that the petitioner denied the title of the respondent and thereby lost the rights conferred under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1927. Even though the question of denial of title is a question of fact. Yet, it can be gone into once again by this Court, since that denial of title is not only a mere question of fact but a mixed question of fact and law. Since the fact of denial of title has to be construed as to whether the said fact amounted to denial of title so as to disentitle a person from claiming the right conferred under a statute, it is a mixed question of fact and law.
4. In 1984 when the respondent attempted to fence the land the petitioner sent a notice Exhibit R-1. In the said notice he has stated that the respondent unauthorisedly trespassed upon the property. He called upon the respondent to remove the fence. After the receipt of the reply dated 9.7.1984 the petitioner has again sent a rejoinder Exhibit R-3 dated 17.7.1984. In the second notice dated 17.7.1984 the petitioner has claimed the right under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. He has also stated that he was not in a position to trace out the document dated 19.4.1984 bearing document No. 1 of 1984 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar. He has called upon to furnish all the particulars. This notice does not contain any denial of title. But when he filed the suit for declaration of his right and injunction in O.S.No. 6186 of 1984 he has succeeded by getting a decree in the said suit on 30.1.1987. In the said decree, there is a declaration that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and that itself is sufficient to disentitle the petitioner to claim the right under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1927. A.S.No. 57 of 1988 was filed against the decree granted in O.S.No. 6186 of 1984. The appellate court has also confirmed the decree of the trial court. Further, the appellate court has held that defendant i.e., the respondent herein and her husband were trespassers into the suit property. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has chosen to assert that he is not a tenant under the respondent.
5. The appeal decree is dated 9.12.1988. Subsequently, the respondent filed the present ejectment suit No. 53 of 1987. In para 3 of the same, she has categorically stated that she has purchased the land comprised in Door No. 5, Gengaiamman Koil Street under a registered document dated 19.4.1984. In the plaint it is also stated that the issued a notice dated 6.2.1987 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner. The respondent of course claimed that the petitioner is not entitled to claim right under Tamil Nadu City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1927. However, she has treated the petitioner as a tenant
of the land. The petitioner has filed a written statement. In the written statement he has denied the receipt of the notice terminating the tenancy. He has carefully made statements which goes to show that he has got recognised the respondent as landlady. The written statement has been filed on 9.4.1989. Thereafter under Exhibit R-5 the respondent has sent a notice specifically asserting that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the land, covered by the superstructure bearing Corporation door Number 51, Gangaiamman Koil Street, Madras. In the reply notice dated 14.09.1991 under Exhibit R-6 there is a categorical statement that he denies all the averments contained in the notice as false and frivolous. He has carefully refused to treat the respondent as landlady. The affidavit filed in support of the petition under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants’ Protection Act also there is no recognition of the respondent as the landlady of the land. Even though there is assertion that the petitioner is a tenant of the land, in the petition M.P. No. 1186 of 1987 also the prayer is to permit the petitioner to purchase the land. There is no prayer for permission to purchase the land from the respondent. The phrase “from the respondent” is found missing. It cannot but be a deliberate omission, because all along the petitioner has chosen to refuse to recognise the respondent as landlady of the land.
6. The petitioner has not only chosen to refuse to recognise the title of the respondent as landlady but also failed to pay rents to her. From 1984 onwards, he has evaded payment of rent, even though he claims to be a tenant.
7. In the first instant case, the petitioner had an excuse, because in the reply sent by the respondent under Exhibit R-2 the respondent gave a wrong document number. However, in the subsequent suit she has chosen to give correct document number and date. If that is so, why the petitioner has not chosen to accept her as the landlady is ununderstandable. The failure to recognise the respondent as a landlady cannot but be a deliberate omission with the object evading payment of rent. He has all along maintained the stand that he is tenant, but at the same time not a tenant under the respondent. Even after the filing of the suit for enjectment he has not chosen to change his attitude. From the aforesaid circumstances. I do not find any justification for interfering with the finding of the respondent. The first and foremost requirements for availing the benefit under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1927 is that a ready recognition of the title of the person against whom the tenant asserts his right. In this case, the same is absent. Therefore, in that sense the petition under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1927 is not maintainable.
8. In Bhakagavakula Nainargal Sangam v. Arunachala Udayar and Ors., 1990 (I) L.W. 46, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the benefit under the Act can be given only to certain class of tenants who claim right under a tenancy agreement and not to the persons who claim to be the owners of the properties or set up title in others. The word ‘in others’ will definitely include the tenants who does not recognise the right of lawful owners of the land from whom the tenants have to purchase the land, but at the same time deny the said persons’ title.
9. In V. Raju v. Angammal, 1994 (2) L.W. 100 Justice Srinivasan, (As he then was) has held that a person who has denied the title of the landlord cannot claim the benefit of the enactment. The learned Judge has held that the denial of title in an earlier proceedings also amounted to denial of title. For the foregoing reasons, I feel that the courts below have rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1927. Hence, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.