JUDGMENT: The appellant herein is the plaintiff who filed the suits O.S. Nos.64 and 66 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Tindivanam to evict the respondent herein from the suit properties and for recovery of possession as well as arrears of past and future rent on the basis that the respondent took the subject matter of the suit property on lease and executed Ex.A-6 the unregistered rent agreement. There was an understanding that the respondent should pay the monthly rent of Rs.50 and also to pay the municipal tax. Since the respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent upto 31.7.1978 and also the municipal tax, the same were accrued to the tune of Rs.2,950 and to recover the same the suit is were laid.

2. The respondent herein contested the claim of the appellant contending that the suit property is in occupation of one Selvaraj. The understanding between the appellant and the respondent is that the appellant would evict the said Selvaraj and hand over vacant possession to the respondent and after taking vacant possession a registered lease agreement will be entered into between the parties. However, the said Selvaraj was not evicted by the appellant and no vacant possession was handed over to the respondent. Hence, the relief sought for is a misconceived one against a wrong person; especially when there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

3. The respondent also filed an additional written statement stating that though the subject matter of the suits consist of two different door numbers, the lease agreement being only one, two suits are not maintainable.

4. The appellant filed a reply statement contending that the respondent having executed the lease deed, it is not open to him to deny the relationship of the landlord and tenant. Though earlier the said Selvaraj was the tenant, eviction proceedings were initiated against him before the Rent Controller to evict and in the proceedings the said Selvaraj was evicted. Only after eviction the subject matter of the suits were handed over to the respondent on the basis of the lease agreement entered into between the parties.

5. The appellant has let in both oral as well as documentary evidence. The respondent had examined himself as D.W.1 and no other evidence was let in. The learned District Munsif, after due consideration of the records as well as evidence available before him, by this judgment and decree dated 24.12.1981 decreed the suit finding that the respondent is the tenant in respect of the door Nos.418 and 419 which are the subject matter of the suits. The respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,316-89 in O.S.No.64 of 1979 and Rs.2,148.48 in O.S. No.66 of 19769 representing the arrears of rent as well as the arrears of municipal tax along with future interest till the delivery of possession.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed appeals A.S. Nos.41 and 42 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court, Tindivanam. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeals, however, took a different view and consequently allowed the appeals by his judgment and decree dated 18.7.1984 and dismissed both the suits. Hence, the present second appeals.

7. At the time of admission the following substantial question of law was formulated:

“Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated by its failure to consider the evidence on record and apply the correct principle of law?”

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ex.A-6 the unregistered lease agreement and Ex.A-7 the miscellaneous receipt would clearly establish that the respondent was entrusted with the vacant possession of the suit premises and he is the tenant from the date on which he took possession of the suit property. The trial Court has rightly found that one Mr.Varadaraj who paid rent under Ex.A-7 is the manager of the respondent herein. The suit premises is under the control and occupation of the respondent herein and when once he is the tenant, he is liable to pay the ren

Click Here to Read the rest of this document