Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MALA, J.
Trilochini (Deceased) & Others - Petitioner
Versus
Chitralekha – Respondent
S.A. No. 656 of 2004
Decided on : 24-06-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :M. Vaidyanathan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N. Jayabalan, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the entitlement to recovery of possession.
Headnote:
Landlord Tenant Relationship - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 105 - The court considered the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and the payment of water tax, land tax, and property tax as rent. The court found that there was no evidence of a rental agreement and that the mere deposit of money in the plaintiff's daughter's account did not establish a landlord-tenant relationship. The court concluded that the plaintiff was the owner of the property and was entitled to recovery of possession. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the owner of the property, sought recovery of possession from the defendant, who had been residing in the premises. The defendant claimed a landlord-tenant relationship and sought dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of a rental agreement and that the mere deposit of money in the plaintiff's daughter's account did not establish a landlord-tenant relationship. The plaintiff was held entitled to recovery of possession.
Issues: Existence of landlord-tenant relationship, nature of occupation, absence of pleadings
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence and concluded that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The plaintiff was the owner of the property and was entitled to recovery of possession.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored.
1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2000 made in A.S.No.253 of 1999 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1998 passed in O.S.No.790 of 1995 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property having been allotted under Ex.A.1/Family arrangement The defendant herein is the daughter of the plaintiff's elder sister Anusuya Bai. The plaintiff is employed as a Doctor in Malaysia and has been residing in Malaysia. During her absence, the plaintiff permitted her sister Anusuya Bai to reside in the suit premises. The said Anusuya Bai died and the defendant herein who had been residing with her mother was permitted by the plaintiff to continue to reside in the premises. In the year 1993, the plaintiff had requested the defendant to hand over vacant possession and the defendant had promised to vacate before December 1993. However, as the defendant failed to vacate the premises, the plaintiff issued a Ex.A.2/notice, dated 12.03.1994 revoking the permission granted to the defendant with effect from 30.04.1994. After the receipt of the Ex.A.2/notice, the defendant issued Ex.A.4/Reply, dated 23.03.1994 alleging that the plaintiff had promised to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation. Thereafter, by a letter dated 29.03.1994, the plaintiff had refused the claim of the defendant for compensation and the defendant in her reply dated 29.03.1994 expressed her inability to vacate the premises on personal grounds and reiterated that the plaintiff had promised to pay a substantial amount as compensation. However the plaintiff refused the same and came forward with the present suit.
3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant is as follows:
The appellant who is the defendant in the suit filed the written statement stating that the plaintiff is a citizen of Malaysia and therefore, in order to look after the property she had requested her sister Anusuya Bai to stay in the said property. The plaintiff also appointed the defendant's mother as the power agent to do all acts pertaining to the suit property. After the marriage of this defendant, she had settled in Avadi. As the defendant's mother grew older and she was not able to manage the house affairs, she requested the defendant to stay with her in the suit property and to assist her in the maintenance of the property. Thus the defendant was put in possession of the suit property by her mother and not by the plaintiff. While so, after the marriage of plaintiff's daughter, she informed the defendant that she wanted to settle the property in favour of her daughter and it may not be proper on her part to allow the defendant to reside in the suit property without any rent. So, the plaintiff fixed the monthly rent at Rs.100/- and directed her to deposit the monthly rent of Rs.100/- to the credit of Banu in her Account with Indian Overseas Branch, Nehru Park Branch and the defendant is remitting the rent to the credit of Banu from September 1985 till this date. In the year 1989, the rent was enhance to Rs.200/-. While so, the plaintiff wanted the defendant to vacate the suit property and she offered to give a sum of Rs.60,000/- to buy a flat. When the defendant impressed upon the plaintiff that she cannot do any thing with the meagre amount, the plaintiff came forward to pay another sum of Rs.40,000/-. In such circumstances, the defendant was shocked to receive a lawyer's notice dated 12.03.1994 calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises, for which this defendant sent a personal letter dated 23.03.1994 reminding the plaintiff about her offer inter alia reserving her right to protect her statutory right. So, the defendant is not the permissive occupier in the suit property as claimed in the plaint. After the e
