Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 119
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
Asmath Begum
Versus
M.R. Devarajan
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2484 of 2008
Decided On :18-01-2010
For Petitioner:Ms. S. Sujatha, A. Ramaganesan, Advocates.
For Respondent:V. Avudainayagam, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant denying the title of the landlord ceases to be a tenant and cannot claim benefits under the MADRAS CITY TENENATS PROTECTION ACT, 1921.
Headnote:
Ejectment Suit - MADRAS CITY TENENATS PROTECTION ACT, 1921 - Section 11 - [Exhibit A.1, Exhibit A.2, Exhibit A.3, Exhibit A.4, Exhibit A.5, Exhibit A.6, Exhibit A.7, Exhibit B.1, Exhibit B.3, Exhibit B.4, Exhibit B.5] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the property. The court also discussed the legal provisions of the MADRAS CITY TENENATS PROTECTION ACT, 1921, particularly Section 11, and highlighted the mandatory issuance of notice before institution of suits or applications against tenants. The court emphasized that when a tenant denies the title of the landlord, the tenancy ceases, and the tenant cannot claim benefits under Section 9 of the Act. The court also discussed the definition of a tenant under the Act and the right to claim compensation for superstructure erected by the tenant. The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the revision petitioner/defendant to establish ownership or adverse possession of the suit property.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff claimed absolute ownership of the land and sought vacant possession from the revision petitioner/defendant, who contested the claim by asserting ownership through purchase from predecessors in title and adverse possession. The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, leading to the civil revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the property based on the evidence presented, and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to claim the delivery of vacant possession of the suit property from the revision petitioner/defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the revision petitioner/defendant to establish ownership or adverse possession of the suit property, as well as the mandatory issuance of notice before institution of suits or applications against tenants under Section 11 of the MADRAS CITY TENENATS PROTECTION ACT, 1921.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
The revision petitioner/defendant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2005 in Ejectment Suit No.52 of 2004 passed by the Learned IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Germine facts of the respondent/plaintiffs case are as follows:
The respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land over which the superstructure bearing old Door No.4, New No.5, Mottai Garden, First Lane, Old Washermenpet, Chennai 21 rests. The petitioner/defendants husband V.M.Sulaiman became the tenant under the respondent/plaintiffs father Rajagopal in respect of vacant land measuring 722 (38 X 19) Sq.Ft. on a monthly rent of Re.1/-. Later, the revision petitioner/defendants husband built up the superstructure on the vacant land leased out to him and was paying the monthly rent in respect of the land regularly. Lastly, the petitioner/defendants husband paid Rs.5/-per month towards land rent to the respondent/plaintiff and after his demise, the revision petitioner/defendant was paying a land rent of Rs.10/- per month to the respondent/plaintiff. The revision petitioner/defendant paid the land rent for the month of March 2000 and from April 2000 onwards, the land rent was not paid in spite of repeated demands. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff caused a notice dated 27.4.2003, and called upon the revision petitioner/defendant to pay the arrears of rent. The respondent/plaintiff terminated tenancy of the revision petitioner/defendant and called upon to vacate the suit property by the end of 31.7.2003 and offered a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the revision petitioner/defendant as compensation for the superstructure as per Section 11 of the MADRAS CITY TENENATS PROTECTION ACT, 1921. The petitioner/defendant received the notice on 30.4.2003 and gave a reply dated 14.5.2003 mentioning false and fictitious allegations. The revision petitioner/defendant did not comply with the respondent/plaintiffs demand and therefore, the present suit was laid to quit and deliver vacant possession of the land described in the schedule.
3. The case of the revision petitioner/defendant is set out below:
The respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. The superstructure on the suit land, originally owned by one Abdul Baseeth on the leasehold right of the land from the father of the respondent/plaintiff. He sold the superstructure along with the lease hold right to G.B. Abdul Majeed, son of Babu Sahib by a registered sale deed dated 17.9.1945 (vide document No.556/1945) on the file of the Registrar of Madras and Chenglepet. The leasehold right was purchased by the said Abdul Majeed from the father of the respondent/plaintiff M.K.Rajagopal Chettiar after payment of the compensation determined by this Court in Ejectment Suit No.3458/1947. Thus, Abdul Majeed became the absolute owner of the land and superstructure of the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff had no right to claim the suit property after 1947. The said Abdul Majeed executed a will bequeathing the suit property to his son G.M.Abdul Wahab on 22.2.1959. In turn the said Abdul Wahab sold the house and the land by means of a registered sale deed dated 19.10.1963 to one Karima Jan in respect of the premises No.16, Mottai Garden, First Lane bearing Door No.5. Later, Karima Jan sold the property to the husband of the revision petitioner/defendant on 12.2.1982 by means of registered sale deed (vide document NO.177/82).
4. Added further, the husband of the revision petitioner/defendant had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and mortgaged the same to the Muthialpet Benefit Fund Ltd. and discharged the same on 12.08.1998 and the husband of the revision petitioner/defendant, was paying property and other taxes and in fact the revenue records were standing in his name. After the demise of her husband, the revision petitioner/defendant is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. The allegations in parag
