Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANIKKACHALAM
Ramalinga Chettiar
Versus
Srinivasa Chettiar
S.A. No. 640 of 1982
Decided On :Decided On : 21-06-1996
LANDLORD AND TENANT - NOTICE TO QUIT - MANUFACTURING LEASE - SIX MONTHS NOTICE REQUIRED - DENIAL OF TITLE - ESTOPPEL - FORFEITURE OF TENANCY - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SEC. 106 - EVIDENCE ACT, SEC. 116 - TAMIL NADU CITY TENANTS PROTECTION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the suit property after removal of superstructure and for past mesne profits. The defendant claimed that he was a tenant under the plaintiff and was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The trial court decreed the suit but declined to pass a decree for recovery of possession. The first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and granted a decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the lease was a manufacturing lease and the defendant was entitled to six months notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice issued by the plaintiff was not a valid notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the first appellate court was not entitled to direct the defendant to quit and deliver possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the lease was a manufacturing lease and the defendant was entitled to six months notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. Whether the notice issued by the plaintiff was a valid notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act? 3. Whether the first appellate court was entitled to direct the defendant to quit and deliver possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the lease was a manufacturing lease since crushing of oil seed and extracting oil is a manufacturing activity. 2. The court held that the notice issued by the plaintiff was not a valid notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act since it was not a six months notice. 3. The court held that the first appellate court was not entitled to direct the defendant to quit and deliver possession since the notice issued by the plaintiff was not a valid notice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court.
1. The defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 170/78 on the file of District Munsif, Court at Chidambaram, for possession after removal of superstructure in the suit property and for past mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff is as under:
2. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff. The defendant became a tenant of the property under the plaintiff on 30.4.1996 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-. The rent is payable on or before the 30th of every month. If there is any default in payment of rent before the 30th of every month, the defendant is bound to pay Rs. 5/-. The tenancy was for a period of three years. The rental agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 30.4.1966 incorporating the abovesaid clause. Even after the expiry of the lease period, the tenant has been in possession of the suit property as a tenant holding over. He was irregular in payment of rent. After May 1978, a sum of Rs. 321/- is due and payable by the defendant towards the arrears of rent. The plaintiff sent a notice on 19.10.1977 to the defendant terminating the tenancy with the expiry of 29.11.1977 and demanding him to surrender the possession of the property on 30.11.1977 with arrears of rent of Rs. 281/- due upto 30.9.1977. The tenant sent a reply notice on 26.10.977, refusing to vacate. In the reply notice, the tenant alleged that the rent is only Rs. 3/- per month and not Rs. 4/- per month as stated by the plaintiff. On 12.12.1978 the defendant sent again a notice to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to specify a bank to deposit the rent. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent another notice dated 24.10.1978 terminating the tenancy with effect from 31.3.1978, and also requiring the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the suit land. The defendant is not entitled to the rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act or under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Hence the suit.
3. The case of the defendant is as under: The defendant is in occupation of 50 ft. “51 ft of vacant land on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/- from 1.5.1966 onwards. Rent per month was fixed at Rs. 3/- with effect from January, 1967. The defendant has obtained the plaintiffs signature in Katchayat book kept with him as evidence for payment of rent. The defendant is not in arrears of rent as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff used to come to the suit land and collect the rent from the defendant. Since the plaintiff refused to receive the rent, the defendant sent a money order on 26.10.1977 towards the rent due upto 30.10.1977 which the plaintiff refused to receive. In the month of October, 1977, the plaintiff, demanded rent from the tenant at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. The plaintiff also demanded the defendant to sell his adjacent land to the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendant refused to pay the higher rent and also refused to sell his land to the plaintiff. Because of that, the plaintiff came forward with the present suit. The defendant erected a superstructure in the leasehold land, wherein the defendant is carrying on his business of oil seed crushing and selling the oil. The defendant put up a thatched shed and installed a country oil crusher in the suit land. Therefore, the plaintiff is not the owner of the superstructure. The defendant is entitled to the benefits under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The notice issued by the plaintiff is not valid. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW. 1 The defendant examined himself as DW.
1. One Muthukumaraswamy Pillai was examined as DW. 2. The plaintiff filed 9 documents. The defendant filed 24 document.
5. Considering the facts arising in this case the trial court held that the defendant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 102/- and the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act since the said Act was not made applicable to t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
