SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Mad) 681

Madras High Court
AR. LAKSHMANAN
S.Ranganathan - Appellant
Versus
S.Venkatesan - Respondent
Decided On : 08/31/1994

Fact of completion and date of completion of new building to be intimated to Municipalty.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973 and I of 1980), Sec.30(1)-Conditions for exemption from provisions of Section 30(1) -Burden lies on the owns that the construction of the building is within five years-Moreover, fact of completion and date of completion to be notified to Municipalty.

       

Judgement

JUDGMENT:- The plaintiff/ respon-dent, who is the owner of a lodging house at Coimbatore, has filed O.S. No. 358 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, seeking the following reliefs:

(a) For eviction of the tenant/ defendant/ appellant and for delivery of possession; and

(b) For future mesne profits from the date of suit viz., 2-6-1982.

The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for, against which the defendant has filed the present appeal.

2. The case of the respondent/ plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff purchased the suit properties by a registered sale deed dated 13-11-1972. In 1978 he converted the building as a lodging house and has put up 24 lodging rooms in the three storey building viz., eight rooms in the first floor, eight rooms in the second floor and eight rooms in the third floor. Six out of 24 rooms were double rooms with bath attached. There was an office room in the ground floor and one room for the use of Dhobi on the terrace.

3. There were almirahs, electric fittings and electric connections in each of the rooms. There is one bore well and over-head tank installed. An one H.P. motor is connected to the municipal water pipe and one three H. P. motor has been attached to the bore well to lift the water to over-head tank in the terrace. The defendant was put in possession of the suit properties for a period of three years by virtue of a lease agreement which is unregistered, on 1-4-1979. According to the plaintiff, the lease came to an end by efflux of time on 31-3-1982. The plaintiff, on the expiry of the lease, issued a notice dated 14-5-1982 calling upon the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession on or before 31-5-1982. As the defendant did not comply with the said demand, the suit was filed.

4. According to the plaintiff, all the rooms so let out were suitably furnished. The plaintiff claimed that the building was exempt from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Ront Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as to the Act) under Section 30(iii). This is because, according to the plaintiff, the lease was a composite lease. The plaint was sought to be amended, by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the suit by introducting paragraphs 12(a) to 12(d) as per which the case of the plaintiff is, that the defendant was a friend of one A. Sundrarajan, who introduced the defendant to him and subsequent to that, in June, 1978 the plaintiff and the defendant started the lodge even though it was not a regular partnership but was the association of persons without any formal record.

5. According to the plaintiff, he had invested lot of capital towards purchase of furniture and necessary equipments to run the lodge and employed one Devarajan, manufacturer of cots, and one Shanti Arts to help the plaintiff to paint the name board. The plaintiff would further submit that he and the defendant had made an application to the Coimbatore Municipality for approval to run the lodge and from 1-4-1979 the defendant was given the lease of the lodge under the agreement Ex, A. 5. During 1980, an additional room adjacent to the office room in the ground floor was allowed to be occupied by the defendant as tenant. The plaintiff issued the quit notice dated 14-5-1982 to surrender possession of the lodging house, which was acknowledged by the defendant on 15-5-1982. In that notice there is no mention of the lodge having been leased out with furnitures, fittings etc., and even in the description of properties in the notice it is mentioned as premises bearing Door No. 160, N. H. Road, Coimbatore. Even in the operative portion of the notice the plaintiff has not said that the lease was a composite lease. The further case of the plaintiff is that the building is exempt from the provisions of the Act in terms of Section 30(1) as a period of five years from the date on which the construction had been completed had not lapsed.

6. The case of the defendant/ appellant is as follows :- The defendant den









































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top