and in the suit for eviction, will not disentitled the Civil Court from deciding whether the defendant was at all entitled to the protection of the Act. Once the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the party was entitled to the protection of the Act, no further decision can be taken by the Civil Court and the. parties have to be directed to approach the appropriate authority under the Act. But the Civil Court is not barred from considering as to whether one of the parties claiming protection under the Act has any prima facie case to substantiate his claim or not. The Civil Court is not deprived of the said power. One could easily visualise the easy process of abuse of statutory provisions as in the present case if the civil court does not have such a power. The provisions of the Act are not meant for frivolous abuse of the statutory provisions and the powers of the Civil Court are not taken away by the mere allegation of the defendant that he is titled to the protection of the Act. The civil court Has got every jurisdiction to find out as to whether the party claiming protection under the Act, is really a person who is entitled to the protection of the Act. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the protection of the Act and it has also been substantially established before the Courts below as well as through the additional evidence filed in CMP No.1255 of 1985 that the defendant was possessed of agricultural properties which would totally disentitle him from approaching the Authorised Officer, In the said circumstances, the objections, taken by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, cannot be sustained. 19. Having regard to the above judgments and on perusal of the evidence adduced by the defendant, it is clear that no evidence is available on record to show that he is occupying the suit property either as a tenant or as a agriculturist. Whereas, his evidence clearly shows that he is a teacher by profession. When a person seeks benefits under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, he should establish the ingredients of the Act to get such benefit. In the absence of evidence in this regard, this court find that the defendant cannot seek any benefit either under the provisions Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act or under the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971. Hence, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour
