JUDGMENT :

The defendant in O.S.No.403 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil, is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The respondent herein, namely, Anbu filed the said suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of payment. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of Jeyalakshmi Modern Rice Mill, bearing Door No.154, Puliyadi, Kalungadi Road, Vadasery Village. The defendant took over possession of the said Modern Rice Mill as lessee. After entering into rent deed dated 25.02.2004, the defendant deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the plaintiff. It was agreed that the monthly rent will be Rs.30,000/-. The agreement was to be for a period of three years. The allegation of the plaintiff is that for the first 18 months the defendant paid the rent regularly and thereafter, he defaulted. The plaintiff lodged a complaint before the local police station for recovering the arrears of 6 months rent to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Though the defendant admitted his liability and agreed to clear the same, he paid only a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 11.04.2006. Thereafter, the defendant filed O.S.No.75 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, claiming damages from the plaintiff and for restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his possession of the rice mill. The suit was dismissed on 09.04.2007 and thereafter, he filed A.S.No. 34 of 2007 before the District Court, Nagercoil. The plaintiff would claim that the defendant voluntarily surrendered the possession of the Rice Mill on 21.05.2007. The rental arrears, according to the plaintiff came to Rs.5,60,000/-. After deducting the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for recovering the balance amount of Rs.60,000/-, he had filed the said suit.

3. The appellant herein filed his written statement opposing the suit prayer. The defendant would claim that there was no default in the matter of payment of rent. He also denied the claim of the plaintiff that the possession was amicably handed over. According to the defendant, the plaintiff took forcible possession on 21.05.2007. The defendant had registered a police case against the plaintiff in Crime No.1234 of 2007 on the file of Vadasery police station. The very institution of the suit was a counterblast to the earlier suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.75 of 2006. The trial Court framed the issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover money as prayed for. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4. The learned trial Munsif came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not filed any document except Ex.A.3 to show that the defendant was in arrears of rent. Since the plaintiff had not examined any independent witness to substantiate the case, the trial Court dismissed the suit by Judgment and Decree dated 08.10.2009. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.58 of 2010 before the I Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. By Judgment and Decree dated 11.04.2011, the Judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Questioning the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

4. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“(1) Whether the first appellate Court was wrong in decreeing the money suit by directing to pay rent, for the period when admittedly no landlord tenant relationship exists and

(2) Whether the first appellate Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has not proved his case independently?”

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record had rendered a finding that the plaintiff has not proved his claim that the defendant was in arrears and that the defendant owed to pay money to the plaintiff. The appellate