The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure under Section 9 of the CTP Act and the duty of the Trial Court to determine the rights of the parties before proceeding further.

JUDGMENT

(PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, against the judgement and decree dated 17.09.2003 passed in A.S.No.7 of the 1998 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri confirming the judgement and decree dated 24.02.1992 passed in OS.No.548/1985 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ponneri.)

1. This is an interesting appeal which arises from proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act.

2. O.S.No.548 of 1995, on the file of the learned District Munsif at Ponneri was initiated by two persons, namely, Ravanammal and Padmalakshmi. It was their case that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and one Kamalammal, the 1st defendant was their tenant. The monthly rent was Rs.8/- and the tenancy was oral. The 2nd defendant Valliammal is said to be the sub-tenant to the suit property. The property had been sub-let according to the plaintiff without their knowledge and consent.

3. The plaintiff further pleaded that the rent for over a period of 36 months had not been paid prior to the presentation of the plaint i.e. on 06.04.1985. The plaintiff further pleaded that the 1st defendant seem to have sold the superstructure to the 2nd defendant along with the leasehold rights and as such that the 2nd defendant was not entitled to the protection of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act of 1921 [Hereinafter referred to as (CTP Act)]. Prior to the presentation of the plaint, a notice had been issued on 03.05.1984 to the defendants terminating the tenancy. In the said notice, 3 months time was granted to vacate and hand over possession. The plaintiff sought for the following reliefs:-

"1. direct the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property described in the schedule hereunder to the plaintiff after the removal of the superstructure thereon.

2. direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.288/- to the plaintiffs.

3. direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit."

4. The 1st defendant, the tenant, remained exparte. The 2nd defendant alleged sub-tenant, entered appearance. She stated that the suit property belonged to the 1st plaintiff’s husband and the 2nd plaintiff’s father, late Ramakrishnan Naidu. The 2nd defendant admitted that the 1st defendant was the tenant under him. She denied the alleged sub-letting of the property. It was the clear and categorical case of the 2nd defendant that she had purchased the superstructure from the 1st defendant on 10 of July 1967 through a registered sale deed in Document No.1140 of 1967.

5. The 2nd defendant further pleaded that she had remitted the ground rent of Rs.3.50/- through money order and the same was refused by the aforesaid Ramakrishnan Naidu. The 2nd defendant further stated that the said Ramakrishnan Naidu had voluntarily attorned her tenancy and had been receiving rent of Rs.3.50/- till his life time. The 2nd defendant further pleaded that she substantially modified the superstructure and had spent huge amount of Rs.20,000/-. It was further pleaded that on the death of Ramakrishnan Naidu, the 2nd defendant sent the ground rent of Rs.63/- from December, 1962 till March 1967 but it was not received by the plaintiff.

6. The 2nd defendant further claimed the benefit of the CTP Act and pleaded that there was attornment in tenancy by the said Ramakrishnan, the original owner. Subsequently, on the basis of this written statement, on 20.02.1986, a petition was filed under the provision of Section 9 of the CTP Act, and the same was numbered as I.A.No.2286 of 1986. This application was returned stating an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been returned. Subsequently, the condone delay application was numbered as I.A.No.1105 of 1986. This was an application to condone the delay of 133 days in filing the petition under Section 9 of the CTP Act.

7. In order to satisfy myself, if these applications had been ordered, I have called for the records from the