Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3843
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R.S. RAMANATHAN
Vijayakumari
Versus
T.J. Rajalakshmi
S.A.No.1029 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided On: 07-09-2011
For the Appellant:Ashok Menon, Advocate.
For the Respondent:V. Muralidharan, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that the nature of the lease and the validity of the notice to quit are crucial in eviction cases, and the court must consider the purpose of the lease and the requirements of the applicable legal provisions.
Headnote:
Eviction - Lease - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 106, Section 113, Section 111(a) - The court held that the lease was given for non-residential purpose and not for manufacturing purpose, where six months' notice is required. The notice to quit was properly given and the suit for eviction was maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for eviction and future damages, claiming that the appellant failed to vacate the leased property after proper notice to quit was given. The appellant contested the suit, arguing that the notice to quit was not proper and the lease was for manufacturing purpose, requiring six months' notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease was for non-residential purpose, and the notice to quit was properly given. The court upheld the eviction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the notice to quit and the nature of the lease (non-residential or manufacturing purpose).
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lease was for non-residential purpose, and as per Section 111(a) of the Act, the lease was terminated by efflux of time. Therefore, no additional notice was required. The court also held that the notice to quit was proper.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower courts. The appellant was given six months' time to vacate the property.
1. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and also for future damages.
2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that the property was given on lease to the appellant/defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- from 29.10.1992 onwards. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced to Rs.1,200/- per month from the year 2000 onwards. As the premises was required for the plaintiff's daughter-in-law, a notice to quit was issued on 10.11.2003, giving 15 days' time to the appellant/defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit property. As the appellant/defendant did not vacate and handover possession of the suit property, the suit was filed for eviction.
3. The appellant/defendant contested the suit stating that the suit for eviction is not maintainable and the respondent/plaintiff ought to have filed a petition by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and notice to quit was also not proper, as the lease was for manufacturing purpose and six months' notice was not given.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that notice to quit was properly given and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the Village is not notified under the provisions of Act 18 of 1960. The First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and hence, the Second Appeal.
5. The following substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal:-
Whether proper notice to quit was given by the respondent?
6. Mr.Ashok Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that admittedly under Ex.B3, notice to quit was given on 20.1.2003 and thereafter, the rent was received by the respondent/plaintiff and under Ex.A1, dated 10.11.2003, another notice was given, giving 15days' time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and having regard to the purpose for which the property was taken on lease, six months' time ought to have been given for vacating the premises. Therefore, the suit is bad for want of proper notice.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even if the notice issued under Ex.B3, was taken into consideration as proper notice to quit, as per the provisions of 106 (3) of the Transfer of Property Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by Act 3 of 2003, notice-Ex.B3, cannot be considered as proper notice, as the respondent/plaintiff issued another notice under Ex.A1, dated 10.11.2003, and by reason of provision of Section 113 of the Act, earlier notice-Ex.B3, dated 20.1.2003, can be said to have been waived by the issuance of subsequent notice under Ex.A1. Therefore, no proper notice was given to terminate the lease.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that having regard to the purpose for which the property was taken on lease, viz., for running a Flour Mill and Oil Mill, the lease must be deemed to be a lease for manufacturing purpose and six months' notice is necessary and in this case, under Ex.A1, only 15 days' notice was given and the suit was filed on 10.12.2003, and therefore, the suit is hit by Section 106 of the Act. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment reported in A.I.R. (1982) S.C. 127 in the case of [Idandas Vs. Anant Ramchandra] in support of his contention, wherein, in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that lease granted for running a Flour Mill must be construed as a lease for manufacturing purpose and six months' notice is necessary and in the absence of such notice, the suit is not maintainable. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is not maintainable and these aspects were not properly appreciated by the Courts below
9. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is seen from the averments made in the plaint that the re
