8.After a close scrutiny of the evidence and the judgments, of the Courts below it is clear that the plaintiff who is the owner of the suit property has attorned the tenancy in favour of the defendants and on default of payment of rent he has issued termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the same has been received by the defendants and has replied under Ex.A-5. In the reply itself the defendants has contended that after the purchase of the suit property by the defendants from the erstwhile owner Ramanatha Iyer they were supplying natural manure to the plaintiff as rent as they were supplying to the erstwhile owner. Even to this plea, the defendants have not produced any evidence to show that they are capable of producing natural manure and some was supplied to the landlord/plaintiff. Thus none of the facts have been proved by the defendants though pleaded. Above as pointed out by the trial Court, DW-1 during the cross examination has gone to the extent of saying that the erstwhile owner Ranganatha Iyer has gifted the suit property to them and allowed them to enjoyed as a owner. The defendant have luxury to make inconsistent plea, but they should not be destructive to each other. Atleast there must be some evidence substantial to fortify either of the plea. In this case, the plaintiff have proved the lessor lessee relationship and also proved termination of the lease by Causing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act while so, the defendants have failed to produce any evidence to show that they are agriculturers and protected under Kudiyiruppudar Act. In the absence of evidence to the effect that either the plaintiff or the defendants have some agriculture holding, the plea of the defendants that they are protected under Kudiyiruppudar Act is
