Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Pongiappan, J.
P.Thambi (deceased) Vasantha - Appellant
Vs.
The Official Trustee of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Trust Estate of Kadappakkam Charities - Respondent
S.A. No.1360 of 2010 and M.P. No.1 of 2010
Decided On : 11-01-2022
Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 – Section 9, 11 - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1968 - Section 6 (18) and 1(3)(f) - Property – Land - Terminating tenancy - Arrears of rent - Property belongs to Estate of Charities - In a scheme, by an order made in C.S. on file of High Court of Madras, said property was vested with plaintiff/respondent and he is administering Trust Estate including suit property - Defendant is tenant under plaintiff in respect of suit property on a monthly rent - Tenancy being for non-residential purpose and computed from first to last according to the English Calendar month and rent is payable on or before 10th of every succeeding calendar month - Defendant failed and neglected to pay the rent, totaling as arrears of rent - Plaintiff has terminated tenancy by issuing the Advocate notice - A copy of the notice was also served on Commissioner, Corporation of Madras - Plaintiff has offered to pay a sum towards compensation for superstructure put up by defendant on leased land - Whether Court below are right in holding that Madras City Tenants Protection Amendment Act 2 of 1996 is applicable to respondent trust, being a public charitable trust. Para 11.
Finding of the Court: Now, on considering said submissions with relevant records, before the trial Court, a notice issued by plaintiff to defendant for terminating tenancy was marked - Further, the reply notice sent by the defendant was marked - Now, ongoing through contents of Ex.A.2, in said notice, defendant admitted that the notice was received by him - As such, appellants are not entitled to raise any objection once again either before First Appellate Court or before this Court - Though, in view of the orders passed by learned Principal Judge, appellants / defendants had deposited arrears of rent - In view of the fact that the Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, is not having any provision for deposit of rents in the City Civil Court, same is no way helpful to appellants' case - First Appellate Court has also decided issue in the same line and concluded appeal filed by appellants that they are not entitled to the benefit under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act - Accordingly, in the light of the discussions stated supra, substantial questions of law framed are all answered in favour of the plaintiff and thereby, Second Appeal filed by appellants/defendants is dismissed, as findings arrived at by Court is within law already settled by various Courts.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2010 made in A.S.No.179 of 2007 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2006 made in O.S.No.8888 of 1986 on the file of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.
3. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:
(ii) The defendant failed and neglected to pay the rent from 01.11.1985 to 30.11.1986, totalling Rs.650/- as arrears of rent. Therefore, the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy by issuing the Advocate notice dated 28.08.1986. A copy of the notice was also served on the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras. The plaintiff has offered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the superstructure put up by the defendant on the leased land. The defendant sent a reply notice dated 12.09.1986 and the plaintiff sent a rejoinder dated 25.09.1986.
(iii) The defendant is a trespasser and the tenancy has been duly terminated and he is liable to pay damages for use and occupation from 01.12.1986 till the date of delivery of vacant possession, at Rs.500/- per month. The plaintiff's Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and is therefore exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by the Act 23 of 1973. Hence, the suit.
4. The case of the defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows:
(ii) The defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit site, even prior to the year 1955. In pursuance of the oral tenancy, the defendant was authorised to put up a superstructure and he built a superstructure. He has been in enjoyment of the site, admeasuring 5818 sq.ft. The superstructure put up by the defendant, is worth about Rs.10 lakhs. Unless and until, rights of the defendant to purchase the site, is extinguished by application of law, the plaintiff, is not entitled to purchase the superstructure.
(iii) The notice of termination is not valid and inconformity under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act. There is no provision in the Act, to enable the tenant to deposit the rents into the Court. The plaintiff is not entitled to receive the damages for use and occupation. It is not correct to state that the suit site, will fetch monthly rent of Rs.50
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
