2021 Supreme(Mad) 1541

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T. Ravindran, J.
Abdul Latheef Maricar – Appellant
Versus
Aisa Beevi and Ors. – Respondents
S.A. No. 1508 of 2008, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2008
Decided On : 08-03-2021

Headnote:

Pondicherry Buildings Act- Section 10(2)- - Plaintiff in brief is that he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour by his parents, who are the predecessors in title and were in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the date of the abovesaid sale and pursuant to the abovesaid sale, the plaintiff took the possession of the suit property and enjoying the same and a room in the front portion of the property was leased out to the second defendant, who is running a tea stall therein and the second defendant is regularly paying the rent to the plaintiff and the remaining portion of the suit property is in the occupation of the first defendant and she is residing therein with her family, the plaintiff sent notices to the first defendant, calling upon her to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property as she was in chronic wilful default in the payment of rent, and despite the receipt of the notices, the first defendant neither replied to the same nor complied with the demand made therein. The plaintiff filed the eviction petition against the first defendant and the first defendant contested the said petition and disputed the title of the plaintiff qua the suit property and also put forth the contention that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The Rent Controller dismissed the abovesaid on the ground that the landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant was not established. However, the Rent Controller has directed the plaintiff to move the Civil Court and get his title declared and seek appropriate reliefs. The order the Rent Controller as abovestated became final. Since there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant qua the suit property, the first defendant's occupation of the suit property is illegal and she has become the trespasser. The first defendant has no title, right or interest over the suit property. The first defendant endeavored to enter her name in the assessment register of the Panchayat relating to the suit property and also tried to receive the rent from the second defendant- Plaintiff sent a notice to the first defendant calling upon her to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property under her occupation and also the copy of the same has been marked to the Panchayat concerned and the second defendant. The first defendant sent a reply containing false allegations and put forth the case that the superstructure in which she is residing was constructed at her own costs and residing therein since 1968 and contended that the notice sent by the plaintiff was not in accordance with law. The abovesaid contentions of the first defendant are totally false and unsustainable. The first defendant has not pleaded adverse possession. The revenue records qua the suit property stood in the name of the plaintiff's father prior to the sale deed and thereafter in the name of the plaintiff. The suit property if let out to rent, would fetch a sum of Rs. 100/- per month and the first defendant is liable to pay the damages as well as the future damages and hence the suit for appropriate reliefs- Appeal against the judgment and decree on the file of the Additional District Court- Plaintiff having failed to establish his claim of title to the suit property in any manner and when admittedly, the first defendant is in the occupation of the suit property and when the plaintiff has not established that he has a better claim of title to the suit property for securing the reliefs prayed for in the plaint, , the suit laid by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed-In the light of the abovesaid discussions, the judgment and decree the file of the Additional District Court, Pondicherry at Karaikal, dismissing the plaintiff's suit by reversing the judgment and decree passed on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikal are confirmed, though not for the reasons assigned by the appellate court, but for the reasons referred to supra and resultantly the second appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed-Appeal dissmised