Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5146
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
K. Lakshmiammal
Versus
M.P. Naveen Kumar & Others
Second Appeal No.1034 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 and C.R.P. (NPD).No.3277 of 2009
Decided On : 30-11-2009
For the Appellant :K. Sukumaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Thiagarajan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the forfeiture of lease under Sec. 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, which influenced the court's decision to dismiss the appeal and revision.
Headnote:
Ejectment Suit - City Tenants Protection Act - Sec. 9, Madras City Municipal Corporation Act - Sec. 256(1) and 256(3) - Transfer of Property Act - Sec. 111(g) - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [City Tenants Protection Act, Sec. 9, Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, Sec. 256(1) and 256(3), Transfer of Property Act, Sec. 111(g)] - The court discussed the application of the City Tenants Protection Act, the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, and the Transfer of Property Act in the context of the tenant's right to the property, the jurisdiction of the civil court, and the forfeiture of lease, influencing the decision to dismiss the appeal and revision.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved the ejectment of the defendant from a property in Chennai, with the plaintiffs claiming absolute ownership of the property after the death of the original owner. The defendant, as the wife of the previous tenant, contested the suit, claiming the right to continue the business and purchase the land under the City Tenants Protection Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant did not establish her continued tenancy after 1984 and did not attorn the tenancy, leading to the forfeiture of lease under Sec. 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court also confirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the appeal and revision, citing the lack of evidence to prove the defendant's subsisting tenancy.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the civil court, the denial of tenancy by the defendant, and the applicability of Sec. 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. The court addressed these issues in the context of the defendant's claim and the plaintiffs' right to ejectment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the defendant's failure to prove her continued tenancy, the forfeiture of lease under Sec. 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, and the lack of evidence to support her claim under Sec. 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal and Revision were dismissed, confirming the lower court's judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
The Second Appeal arises out of concurrent findings of Courts below decreeing respondents’/plaintiffs’ ejectment suit and also granting permanent injunction restraining first defendant from putting up any unauthorized construction. Unsuccessful first defendant is the Appellant. For convenience parties are referred in their original rank in the suit.
.2. Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.16791 of 1999 dismissing the petition filed under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act which was confirmed in C.M.A.No.38/2006. Unsuccessful first defendant has filed this Revision Petition.
3. In the first Appellate Court, both Appeal and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (arising out of I.A.No.16791 of 1999 in O.S.No.8449 of 1996) were heard together and disposed by common Judgment. Since common questions arise for consideration both Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petition were heard together and both shall stand disposed by this common Judgment.
4. Suit property relates to No.10, Valmiki Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, T.S.No.4793, about 350 sq.ft. The entire suit property was purchased by Vummidi Padmavathi Ammal under registered sale deed dated 111. 1940. The said Vummidi Padmavathi Ammal settled the property in favour of her daughter Vummidi Brinda Devi under registered settlement deed dated 01.07.1963. As per settlement deed, settlee to enjoy the suit property till her life time and after her death shall be taken absolutely by her children in equal shares. The said settlee Vummidi Brinda Devi died on 12. 1974. Vummidi Brinda Devi had three children and two children passed away and first plaintiff is the only surviving son. Second plaintiff is the husband of Vummidi Brinda Devi. After death of Vummidi Brinda Devi, mutation of Revenue and Municipal Corporation records were effected and Plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit property.
.5. Further case of the Plaintiffs is that Madhavan Nair, husband of first defendant became tenant in the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.75/- in respect of asbestos roof shed under the said Vummidi Padmavathi Ammal. The said Madhavan Nair had been paying rent till his life time. After his death first defendant did not pay the rent and has not attorned the tenancy. First defendant has no right to put up any construction in the property belonging to Plaintiffs. In 1988, second defendant Corporation issued notices under Sections 256(1) and 256(3) of Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, calling upon the second Plaintiff to remove the unauthorized construction. Plaintiffs informed the officials that they have not put up any construction and that only first defendant is only attempting to put up unauthorized construction without planning permission. The second defendant Corporation did not initiate any proceedings for such illegal construction. Alleging that the first respondent has neither paid rent from January 1985 nor attorned the tenancy right with the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of possession and also damages for three years at Rs.36,000/- (at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per month).
6. Resisting the suit, first defendant filed written statement contending that first defendant’s husband Madhavan Nair became a tenant in respect of vacant site to an extent of 600 sq.ft under Vummidi Brinda Devi and the said Madhavan Nair had put up superstructure and has been running tea stall from 1941. The said Madhavan Nair died on 312. 1984 and thereafter first defendant became a tenant in respect of the said land and she has paid the rent up to April 1992. First defendant has also transferred the licence for tea stall in her name. According to first defendant, in April 1992, Plaintiffs refused to receive the rent from the first defendant and have filed ejectment suit.
7. Case of first Defendant is that being wife of Madhavan Nair she has every right to continue the business of her husband and therefore her possession is not illegal and the suit for r
