SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Mad) 492

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
R. Chandramouleeswaran & Others
Versus
P. Vasudevan & Others
S.A.NOS.904 AND 929 of 1996
Decided On : 06-02-2007

For the Appellants:S. Parthasarathy, SC for J. Ramakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, S. Silambanan, R2, V. Natarajan, R3 to R6, P. Mahadevan, Advocates.

Defendant who is in legal possession but not in actual physical possession of land, cannot be termed as tenant.

Headnote:Tenancy---Eviction---Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, Sections 2(4), 9, 11 - Eviction suit dismissed by First appellate Court---Application under Section 9 dismissed by all Courts---Question of claiming any right under Section 9 would not arise - Defendant who is in legal possession but not in actual physical possession of land, cannot be termed as tenant ---Defendant cannot ask for issuance of Notice under Section 11-- Appeals allowed.

Judgment :-

Common Judgment:

This judgment shall govern these two appeals, namely S.A.Nos.904 and 929 of 1996.

2. These second appeals have arisen from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam made in a common judgment made in A.S.Nos.18 and 31 of 1993, C.M.A.No.20 of 1993 and I.A.No.420 of 1995 made in that CMA.

.3. The appellants in these two appeals have filed a suit for ejectment against the respondents herein in O.S.No.484 of 1989. Pending suit, the first defendant filed I.A.No.1153 of 1990 under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. On trial, the suit was decreed and the said IA was dismissed. Aggrieved over the judgment, both the defendants filed two different appeals, which were A.S.Nos.18 of 1993 by the first defendant and A.S.No.31 of 1993 by the second defendant. While the first defendant has also challenged the dismissal of I.A. in C.M.A.No.20 of 1993. The learned Subordinate Judge, on enquiry of the appeals, allowed both the appeals filed by the defendants, but dismissed the C.M.A. Aggrieved the plaintiffs, on denial of the main relief of ejectment, have brought forth these two second appeals before this Court.

4. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of possession with the allegations, stating that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs 4 and 5 and also one Ramachandran, since deceased, are brothers; that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 were the legal representatives of the said Ramachandran; that in the year 1950, the said Ramachandran along with his brothers entered into a lease agreement with one Burmashell Oil Storage and Distribution Company for a period of 10 years; that it was subsequently extended; that thereafter, there was no extension; that a notice was issued on 20.03.1979 by the fourth plaintiff to hand over the possession; that the same was replied by the first defendant, stating that the lease was to be extended for 10 years more as per the Act 2 of 1976; that pending same, the plaintiffs 4 and 5 and their brother Ramachandran, since deceased, challenged Sections 5 and 7 of Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act 2/1976 in W.P.No.9096 of 1982; that while the same was pending, the respondents therein, who is the first respondent herein, namely Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., filed counter stating that it was to be understood between the parties that it was to be extended for a further period of 10 years and after that period was over on 16. 1989, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the suit property; that even thereafter, the first defendant issued a communication stating that the they wanted to continue to occupy the site for a further period of 20 years, to which the plaintiffs were not amenable and therefore, from 15.06.1989, the defendant could not continue with the possession and hence, a demand was made by way of notice and the same was replied and under these circumstances, the suit was filed.

.5. The first defendant filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1153 of 1990, claiming benefit under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act; that what was originally leased out to Bharmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. was only 6534 Sq. feet and subsequently, the lease period was extended then and there; that it actually came to the hands of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation, the first defendant; that superstructure has been raised by the tenant and thus, they were prepared to purchase the same and hence, they are ready to take up the same for a reasonable price as fixed by the Court and hence, it was to be ordered.

6. The second defendant resisted the suit, inter-alia, stating that he was a retail dealer under the first defendant; that the decision of this Court in W.P.No.9096 of 1982 would not bind on him and that no relief of recovery of possession could be asked against him.

7. The trial court, after framing necessary issues, tried the suit along with the interlocutory application. On tria





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top