The tenant's failure to comply with statutory requirements under the City Tenants Protection Act and unauthorized construction negates claims for compensation and justifies eviction.

JUDGMENT :

T.V.Thamilselvi, J.

The appellant, who is the legal heir of 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.78 of 2001, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below rendered in A.S.No. 32 of 2022 by the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvottriyur arising out of trial court findings rendered in O.S.No.78 of 2001 by the District Munsif, Thiruvottriyur, had preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Before the trial court, original plaintiff S.Kannappan filed a suit against the 1st defendant Balusamy directing to quit and deliver vacant possession of property bearing Door No.70/1 situated at Sannadhi Street, Kaladipet, No.28, Sathankadu Village, Thiruvottiyur Municipality in R.S.No. 169/1A in O.S.No.78 of 2001. During the pendency of proceedings, original plaintiff Kannappan as well as original defendant Balusamy died. The respective legal heirs of plaintiff and defendant are added and they are contesting the present Second Appeal. The 3rd defendant/appellant herein is son of original 1st defendant Balusamy and his mother/2nd defendant was already died. According to original plaintiff, original 1st defendant Balusamy was the tenant under him in respect of land measuring an extent of 30' x 30' as described in plaint schedule for the monthly rent of Rs.5/- and he is in arrears of rent from 01.03.1979. Moreover, in view of limitation, the plaintiffs restricted their claim only from 01.07.1976 to 30.06.1979 for a period of 36 months. Furthermore, the suit property was already earmarked for the purpose of theatre under the master plan of Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. By terminating the tenancy, the plaintiff issued a notice on 29.11.1978 and it was duly served on him on 02.12.1978. The copy of notice was also sent to the Commissioner, Thirvottiyur Municipality. As the Rent Control Act does not apply to this village, he had filed a suit for ejection.

4. The 3rd defendant contested the suit by filing written statement stating that his father, 1st defendant was the tenant of the site mentioned in the schedule on a monthly rent of Rs.5/- and the original 1st defendant put up a superstructure and enjoyed the site as tenant. As the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act would apply, they are entitled to benefits under the said Act and they are ready and willing to purchase the site as per the provision of law and also ready and willing to pay rent. However, the plaintiff not given any reply and notice of termination also not valid as per the provision of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act , but, the defendants put up superstructure by spending huge amount. On suppressing the material facts, they have come forward with the suit for recovery and delivery of possession.

5. Both parties have adduced their oral and documentary evidence before the trial court, however, before the trial court, on jurisdictional aspect, the case was transferred to various courts and finally tried by District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur in O.S.No.78 of 2001, but the original case was filed in the year 1979 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. The learned trial judge had framed the issues. The foremost issue is “whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession? Considering the evidence on record, the trial judge held that the defendants were tenants under the plaintiffs for the vacant site and they have committed default in payment of rent from 01.07.1976 to 30.06.1979. For the period of 36 months, there is arrears of rent and by issuing notice on 21.11.1978 the tenancy was terminated as per the provision prescribed under Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act . Inspite of notice, the defendant not paid the arrears nor delivered the vacant possession. According to the defendants, as they have put up superstructure, they are entitled to purchase the property under Sec.9 of City Tenants Protection Act. But, they have filed the said application under Sec.