Art.67 of Limitation Act is applicable on suit based on declaration of title and not recovery of possession simpliciter

1. Theparties in the appeal and the suit are one and the same.

2. Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in C.A.No.2825 of 1996, both the second appeal and the suit have been taken up for joint hearing.

3. The second appeal is against the judgment of learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in A.S.No.260 of 1994 in reversing that of the judgment and decree of learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in O.S.No.10893 of 1989. The plaintiff in the said O.S. is the appellant before this Court.

.4. Theplaintiff filed the said suit in O.S.No.10893 of 1989 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing any portion of the suit property, contending that the suit property belongs to him absolutely and the defendant was inducted into possession of the property as a tenant in the hut of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.8. R.C.O.P.No.3112 of 1969 was filed before the Rent Controller, Madras for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The eviction was ordered and proceedings became concluded before this Court in favour of the plaintiff, but, as the plaintiff had moved to U.S.A., he could not pursue the execution of the order of eviction. Another proceeding was initiated in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1989 before the Rent Controller, Madras on the ground of wilful default and requirement for demolition and reconstruction. The defendant set up title in himself over the suit property, and claimed protection under Tamil Nadu City Tenants’ Protection Act. The claims of the tenant are totally unsustainable and the defendant being a tenant, continued to be a tenant. His claim of ownership over the superstructure was specifically rejected in the earlier proceedings and now, the tenant, realising his untenable position, was attempting to put up a new construction after demolishing old structure. He was estopped from claiming any ownership.

5. In the written statement filed by the defendant in the said O.S. he contended that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no right or title over the suit property. Hence, the bare suit for injunction was not maintainable. There was no estoppel against the defendant claiming title to the property. It was incorrect to state that his claim for the superstructure had been negatived in the earlier proceedings. There was no truth in the statement that the defendant was trying to remove any superstructure belonging to the plaintiff. Assuming without admitting that the plaintiff had any right over the property, such a right had been extinguished long ago. The suit was also barred by limitation. R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1989 has also been dismissed and hence, the suit was barred by res judicata.

6. Learned trial Judge, on a consideration of the said pleadings and evidence, held that the defendant, being a tenant, cannot be heard to claim adverse title. The suit was consequently decreed. The appellate court, however reversed the decree of the trial Court after holding that after the conclusion of the first round of rent control proceedings, which ultimately ended before this Court in C.R.P.No.2919 of 1972, the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties had been terminated by operation of law, as a consequence of the order directing the defendant to hand-over possession to the plaintiff within three months. Therefore, the defendant would be ousted after three months from the date of the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.2919 of 1972, dated 112. 1972. The appellate court also held that the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable without praying for the declaration of title. Hence, the present second appeal by the landlord.

7. In the meantime, in the second round of the rent control proceedings, as against the dismissal of R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1989 by the Rent Controller, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the landlord in R.C.A.No.1063 of 1991. In the revision by the tenant in C.R.P.No.3257 of 1993, Thanikkachalam, J. as he