ORDER: The defendants in O.S.No.7876 of 1986 on the file of the Fifth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit for recovery of possession of the land site forming part of the premises bearing Municipal Door No.199, Broadway, renamed as Prakasam Salai, George Town, Madras-600108, excluding the south west corner portion of two rooms etc. bounded on the north by Door No.200 now owned by M.S.A. Mohamed Ali, south by Door No.198, east by Pophams Broadway and west by Meera Labbai Sreet, comprised in R.S.No.2344 situate within the sub-registration district of Sowcarpet and the registration district of North Madras.

2. The ownership of the property is not disputed. The revision petitioners claim that they are entitled to claim the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The allegations of this in the plaint are as under: Originally the first revision petitioner was the sole proprietary concern of late Rajarathinam, and the tenant of the entire property covered by Door No.199 excluding the south western small portion tenanted by the late Ommer Jaffer. The plaintiff had been employed abroad for over seven years and during his absence there were legal proceedings between the co-owners of the property and the first revision petitioner, in which it was held that it was only the tenant of the land owning the superstructure therein. After the plaintiff became the full owner, he caused a notice to be issued to the first revision petitioner/ first defendant being unaware of the death of the said Rajarathinam and the then owners of the business. There was a reply from an Advocate dated 23.9.1985 stating that the sole proprietary concern of Lease and Company had become a partnership and that defendants 2 and 3/revision petitioners 2 and 3 were its partners. To find out as to whether defendants 2 and 3 in their capacity as partners of first defendant company were the tenants under the general law which permitted sub-letting unless prohibited in writing or the tenants under the Act, the plaintiff caused a quit-cum-demand notice dated 26.6.1986 issued to them calling upon them to say whether they were the transferees of the first defendant business inter vivos or by virtue of legal inheritance. The notice by way of abundant caution as per the requirements of the Act also offered compensation for the superstructure marking a copy of the letter to the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras. The defendants by their reply through counsel dated 1.7.1986 did not provide with clear particulars. In these circumstances, the defendants are tenants of the plaintiffs under general law at sufferance holding out under the will of the plaintiff after the termination of the tenancy with effect from the end of September, 1986 in respect of the said land site on a monthly rent of Rs.30. Since the defendants failed to comply with the quite notice dated 26.6.1986, the plaintiff has been compelled to file the present suit for the reliefs already mentioned.

3. The defendants have filed their written statement to the following effect:

The particulars in paragraph 5 of the plaint are clear to the effect that the tenancy is of the land only and that the superstructure belongs to the defendants, the tenancy having commenced long before 1940. The plaintiff’s predecessor in title one Moosalima Bi filed the suit O.S.No.2672 of 1960 before the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, in which it came to be decided that the tenancy was in respect of the land and it was held by T.Dorairajan and Sumithra and others as members of the joint family. The decision in the said suit is binding on the plaintiff and will operate as res judicata on the question whether the predecessor in title was T.Dorairajan among others. In a decree dated 31.7.1962 passed in O.S.No.884 of 1956 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document