Suit regarding denial of title by the tenant filed in civil court maintainable.

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the appellants are tenants in respect of the suit property, rejecting their claim that they are entitled to the suit property under the agreement between the first plaintiff's husband and the defendants. In the said context, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law.

"Whether the courts below are right in passing a decree for recovery of possession without resorting for eviction proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, as amended Act 1/1980 when particularly the suit property is situate within the city limit of Coimbatore Corporation after having found that the defendants are tenants?"

2. Admittedly, the suit property was assigned to one Devarajan, husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the plaintiffs contend that the first defendant became a tenant and the second defendant is his wife.

3. On the contrary, the defendants, particularly the first defendant, put forward a case that though the suit property was assigned in favour of the first plaintiff's husband, by virtue of an arrangement between the first plaintiff's husband and the first defendant, it was given to the first defendant and the entire construction was put up out of the money of the second defendant.

4. To the notice issued by the plaintiffs terminating the tenancy of the first defendant under Ex.A1, the first defendant sent a reply under Ex.A2 wherein it is stated that "my clients wife (thereby meaning the second defendant therein) is the owner of the premises through an understanding with Devarajan (thereby meaning the husband of the first plaintiff). The said Lalitha constructed the building and came into occupation of the same."

5. As the first defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have sent a rejoinder under Ex.A3 forfeiting the tenancy of the defendants by stating "As your client has wilfully and deliberately denied the title of my client's to the suit property, your client has forfeited his tenancy. His tenancy is hereby terminated and determined as your client is setting up his title in his wife."

6. In view of the specific denial of the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property by the first defendant, the plaintiffs, instead of resorting to the proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 1/1980), approached the civil Court and filed a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that though the suit property was assigned to the first plaintiff's husband, under the agreement between the first plaintiff's husband and the first defendant, the suit property was given to the first defendant and the entire construction was put up only by the first defendant, with the money of the second defendant.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through several vouchers filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants to the extent that though the suit property was actually taken possession by the first plaintiff's husband under Ex.A11 dated 28.6.1976, the constructions were put up much earlier and thus, the constructions were put up only by the second defendant.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon Exs.B3 to B6, the receipts for the payment of penal charges. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that even before the order of assignment of the suit property to the first plaintiff's husband, the penal charges were paid by the defendants. However, the admitted fact that the suit property was assigned to the first plaintiff's husband is not disputed and therefore, these documents are of no help to advance the case of the appellants.

10. Having admitted that the suit property was assigned to the first plaintiff's husband, the onus or burden cast upon the defendants to prove that the suit property was given to the first defendant under some arrangement.