Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1579
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Girija - Appellant
Versus
The Pranobakari Trust, Kanyakumari, Represented by its President M. Arumugam & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.(MD) No. 89 of 2005 and C.M.P.(MD) No. 854 of 2005
Decided On : 12-07-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. T. Arivukumar for Mr. N.GA.Natraj.
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Dhanaseelan.
IMPORTANT POINT
A private Trust can maintain a suit for eviction in a Rent Control Area if it has established ownership and valid tenancy agreements.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenancy - Civil Procedure Code Section 100 - The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing the validity of the lease agreement and the plaintiff's right to recover possession and rental arrears despite the defendants' claims.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought recovery of possession and rental arrears from the defendants, claiming ownership of the property through a lease agreement with the first defendant, who failed to pay rent. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's title and claiming tenancy under a previous occupant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had validly taken possession of the property from the previous occupant and that the lease agreement with the first defendant was legitimate. The second defendant, being the first defendant's wife, had no independent claim to the property.
Issues: Whether the suit for eviction is maintainable when the property belongs to a private Trust and whether the plaintiff had established ownership and right to recover possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff, as a private Trust, could maintain the suit for eviction, having established ownership through prior legal proceedings and valid lease agreements.
Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. Sounthar, J.
[PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.81 of 2004, dated 25.8.2004, on the file of Second Additional Sub-Judge, Nagercoil confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.240 of 2000, dated 27.12.2003, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.]
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.81 of 2004, dated 25.8.2004, on the file of Second Additional Sub-Judge, Nagercoil confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.240 of 2000, dated 27.12.2003, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.
2. The Second defendant in the suit is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of possession and also for recovery of rental arrears by the first respondent/Plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the second defendant has come forward by way of this Second Appeal.
3. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit property belonged to the first respondent/Trust and the suit was filed by the first respondent in O.S.No.73 of 1983 against one Jerry for eviction. The suit was decreed ex-parte and the decree was put into execution and the property was delivered in favour of the first respondent/Trust. After taking possession from the said Jerry, the first defendant in the present suit entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff on 13.04.1996. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.75/-.The second defendant said to be claiming as a tenant under the first defendant and hence, he was made as a party to the suit. The defendants failed to pay the rent and hence, a legal notice was issued on 26.08.1998 terminating the tenancy in favour of the first defendant, claiming arrears of rent and for eviction. There was no response from the first defendant. Therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of possession and for recovery of rental arrears from the first defendant.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendants by denying the title of the first respondent/Trust. It was claimed by the defendants that the lease deed was executed by the first defendant at the time of eviction proceedings against Jerry on the understanding that the suit property would be let out to the first defendant. However, the above said Jerry and his tenant the second defendant were not evicted and possesssion was not at all taken by the first respondent/Plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff failed to hand over the lease agreement entered between the parties and misusing the same, the suit was laid for the above said relief.
5. Before the trial Court, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 11 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. The first and second defendants were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and on behalf of the defendants, five documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5.
6. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the second defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.81 of 2004, on the file of Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the second defendant has come forward by filing this Second Appeal.
7. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law by order, dated 31.01.2008 :
Whether the suit is maintainable, when the property belongs to a private Trust?
8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the suit property situate in a Rent Contol Area and when the plaintiff is a private Trust, the suit for eviction filed before the Civil Court, is not
