JUDGMENT: The substantial question of law framed in the second appeal is as follows:

Where the plaintiff and the defendant did not dispute the identity of the property, to which the defendant is the tenant, whether it is open to a Court to non-suit the plaintiff solely on the ground that a wrong door number has been given to the property?

2. The plaintiff in O.S. No.1534 of 1982 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai, is the appellant in the second appeal. It filed the suit for recovery of possession alleging as follows:

It is the owner of the suit property. It orally leased out the same to the respondent on monthly rent. It requires the property to locate its Information Centre, and for opening a book stall regarding Saiva Sithanda philosophy and various literary works. The respondent refused to surrender possession of the property despite notice and request.

3. The respondent resisted the suit contending inter alia that he is a tenant only in respect of the site, that the superstructure was put up by him, and that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act.

4. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and on the oral and documentary evidence accepted the case of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 10.5.1990. However, on appeal by the respondent in A.S. No.51 of 1990, the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Madurai by judgment and decree, dated 23.8.1990 reversed the decision of the trial Court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

5. It is as against that the present second appeal has been filed.

6. Both the Courts below found that the appellant is the owner of the property, and that the claim of the respondent that the superstructure had been put up by him is not true. While the trial Court held that the notice to quit issued by the plaintiff/ appellant was valid, the lower appellate Court held that the notice had not been given in respect of the suit property, and that, it did not therefore, satisfy the requirements of Sec.108 of the Transfer of Property Act.

7. The only question that is to be answered in the second appeal is-

Whether the notice is quit is a valid one, and whether the parties had understood that the notice to quit was only in respect of the suit property?

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the notice to quit, marked as Ex.A-5, while describing the suit property, instead of giving the door number as 97A-1, it had been given as 97A. But the parties knew that the notice was only in respect6 of the suit property of which the respondent was the tenant and the minor discrepancy should not be made much of. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had denied the title of the appellant to the suit property, and it would amount to forfeiting his rights and on this ground also the appellant would be entitled to have a decree.

9.Per contra Mr.T.R.Mani, learned Senior Counsel, submitted as follows:

It was not as if the plaintiff was not aware of the mistake committed in the notice, that it was aware, would be evident from the fact that it chose to have the plaint amended with regard to the description of the property in the schedule, and when the notice prior to suit did not satisfy the requirements of Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as regards the identity of the property, it was not open to the plaintiff to seek a decree on the basis of a defective notice. The learned senior counsel also drew my attention to the pleadings and in particular to the written statement where it has been specifically mentioned that the suit notice is not valid. As regards the denial of title, though the learned senior counsel conceded that there was indeed, a denial of title by the respondent, still it would, if at all, gives a new cause of action and the plaintiff’s remedy would be a fresh suit. In this connection, the learned senior counsel submitted that the principle, the denial in the course of the proceedings could be tak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document