The central legal point established in the judgment is that tenants are estopped from denying the title of the landlord under Section 116 of the Evidence Act and Section 106 of the T.P. Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2009 passed in O.S.No.104 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court No.I), Thanjavur and allow the appeal throughout both costs and thus render justice.)

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.

1. This Appeal Suit challenges judgment dated 08.07.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Thanjavur in O.S.No.104 of 2005. The Suit had been filed by the unsuccessful defendants in the Suit. A2/D2 had passed away pending Suit and is represented by the other appellants/defendants, who are already on record.

2. The prayer in the Suit was for declaration of title in respect of the land admeasuring 70 cents in Old R.S.No.201 Thiruvidaimarudhur Village and Taluk, Thanjavur District (suit property). The Dharmapuram Atheenam Mutt (in short ‘Mutt’)/plaintiff had sought title to the suit property on the ground of both the entries in the revenue records as well as the fact that the entire extent of the land was in its possession.

3. The land comprising suit property had been under lease to one A.P.Jalaludeen, who was paying a nominal rent for fasli as site rent. The said Jalaludeen passed away on 05.01.1999. Legal notice had been issued by the Mutt on 08.01.2023 calling for surrender of the suit property on the ground that there were substantial arrears of rent from Fasli 1399 onwards when A.P.Jalaludeen had been running the rice mill on the property.

4. Under the legal notice, the legal heirs of Jalaludeen, i.e., the widow, who passed away pending appeal suit, son and daughter-in-law were asked to surrender the vacant possession of the suit property on or before 01.03.2003. A reply was issued denying the averments in the legal notice. Inter alia, the appellants also request the Mutt to sell the site to them which itself would establish their acquiescence to the Mutt’s ownership of the land.

5. The appellants claim to hold patta that was issued on 30.09.1993 in respect of R.S.No.201/1, (admeasuring 0.08.0 Ares) in favour of the first appellant, R.S.No.201/24 (admeasuring 0.11.5 ares) in favour of A.P.Jalaludeen and R.S.No.201/23 (admeasuring 0.08.5 ares) in favour of the deceased second appellant.

6. Admittedly, rents have not been paid from 1993 onwards. The Suit was defended on the ground of long occupation of the land in excess of 5 decades as well as the pattas that had been issued. In any event, appellants claimed independent right over the super structure that had been put up by them, being the rice mill.

7. They averred that the property was classified as Grama Natham and it is only for this purpose pattas had been issued to them. Protection was sought by the appellants under relevant tenancy laws including the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (in short ‘1921 Act’) and specifically Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short ‘T.P.Act’).

8. In the Suit they had argued that notice issued on 08.01.2023 was not a valid notice to quit envisaged under Section 106 of the T.P.Act. Evidence was let in by both parties and the following documents have been marked as Exhibits:

9. The defendants had also entered the box and been examined on their claim to ownership of the land. Judgment came to be passed on 08.07.2009 and the following issues had been framed:

10. After considering several decisions, the Suit came to be dismissed and the legal issue in regard to the adequacy of notice issued by the plaintiff was answered in its favour. The learned Judge held that notice dated 08.01.2003 was valid in terms of Section 106 of the T.P. Act and it was not for a tenant to dispute the title of the landlord who had let him into possession.

11. The decisions in Bankala Vittil Usman Koya and another V. Chidriamokkausa Akoth and another (1905) 15 MLJ 368, N.S.Kuppuswamy Odayar and another v. The Panchayat Narthangudi represented by its President Murugay