Determination of certain kinds of leases by six months notice.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.399 of 1981 on the file of the Court of District Munsif. Thirumangalam, who is no more and whose legal representatives are pursuing this appeal, had filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.202 of 1983, whereunder the learned first appellate Judge has chosen to reverse the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the suit filed for a decree to direct the defendant to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property after removing all the superstructures therein within the time stipulated and for a mandatory injunction also for the removal of the superstructures put up by him.

.2. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and even according to the averments in the plaint, it has been admittedly let out to the defendant for the purpose of running a saw-mill. The plaintiff claimed that the tenancy is as per the English calendar month, the monthly rent being Rs.125 to be paid on or before the 5th of every succeeding English month. The liability is on the defendant to bear the electricity charges. It appears that incorporating all the terms agreed to between the parties, a rent agreement was executed on 13. 1978 and the plaintiff also agreed to put up a shed for the defendant and for that purpose received a sum of Rs.3,000 as advance from the defendant. Since within the time agreed, he could not put up the shed, the defendant himself put up a shed and commenced running the saw-mill and from the monthly rental, a sum of Rs. 1.000 has been adjusted to make up the sum of Rs.3,000. It is also stated in the plaint that it was agreed to have the saw-mill for a period of five years and after that, it can be further renewed for another five years. But, it appears that the defendant did not execute second rental agreement, though, despite objections, for more than ten years, he has been in enjoyment of the mill as a tenant. Contending that the jenancy is over by efflux of time also, apart from urging that the defendant was not regular in the payment of rent from the inception of the tenancy and that the plaintiff also requires the property for his own use for putting up a paddy boiling plaint, the suit came to be filed for the relief noticed supra. It preceded by the issue of a lawyer’s notice dated 37. 1980 marked as Ex.A-5 terminating the tenancy by the end of August, 1980 and calling upon him to hand over vacant possession on 9. 1980. But, the defendant on receipt of notice, sent a reply dated 18. 1980 disputing the claim of the plaintiff and decline to vacate and deliver vacant possession.

3. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaint allegations were false and baseless, that admittedly a lease deed was executed on 13. 1968, but it was not acted upon, but superseded by another oral agreement, whereby the defendant himself put up a superstructure for manufacturing purpose at his own cost and having regard to such investment, the arrangement was that the lease was to be a permanent one, with an option to purchase the property at his convenience and as a matter of fact, a structure put up at a cost of Rs.30,000 and the advance of Rs.3,000 was left to be adjusted towards sale price to be ultimately fixed by the plaintiff A plea was also raised that the suit notice issued on 37. 1980 was not in accordance with law and cannot be the basis for a suit for ejectment. An additional written statement also was said to have been filed disputing the right of the plaintiff to claim mandatory injunction and pleading estoppel against the plaintiff to make such a claim. A reply was also said to have been filed reiterating the earlier stand and denying the claim in the written statement.

4. On the above claims and counter claims, the suit came to be tried and both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The learned trial Judge was of the view that the plea of subsequent oral lease remains unsubstantiated and liable to be reject