The validity of an eviction notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is upheld when the tenant fails to pay rent, confirming the jurisdiction of civil courts to hear eviction cases.

JUDGMENT :

(G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 17.12.2024 in A.S.No.28 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Pudukottai confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.49 of 2011, dated 07.04.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukottai.

2.The defendant in the suit is before this Court on appeal. The parties are referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having been purchased on 07.06.2006 in Ex-A1 and thereafter, had let out the suit property to the defendant for rent on 01.12.2007. A rental agreement in Ex-A3 was executed, whereby, an advance of Rs.40,000/- was fixed and a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- was fixed for the suit property. The property was let out for commercial purpose for running a book stall and a period of 11 months was fixed for the tenancy. The defendant, who was paying the rents till 31.08.2008, had stopped paying the rent from 01.09.2008 and till the month of January 2011, there had been arrears of rent of a sum of Rs.43,500/-. Further, as the defendant was making stocks of the material causing also damage to the suit property, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the suit property. Since the same was not acted upon, the plaintiff has come with the suit for recovery of possession.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement admitting the title of the plaintiff and also the tenancy. The defendant only denies that there is a rental arrears of Rs.43,500/- and it is his claim that only since the plaintiff demanded for increasing the rent from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,500/- and the defendant was not inclined for the same, the plaintiff has come with the suit for eviction.

5. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked Ex-A1 to Ex-A6 and on the side of the defendant, he examined himself as DW-1 and one Selvaraj was examined as DW-2 and Ex-B1 and Ex-B2 were marked.

6. The trial Court, after analysing the evidences, came to the conclusion that the defendant had wilfully not paid the rent for the period from 01.09.2008 to January 2011, thereby, there was an arrear of Rs.43,500/-. Further, the trial Court found that the plaintiff had properly issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act , 1882, in Ex-A4 and since the defendant had not vacated, the plaintiff had validly laid the suit for eviction. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court ordering for eviction, the defendant had preferred an appeal suit.

7. The appellate Court, after re-apprising the evidences, found that the claim made by the defendant that he had made the payment of rent for the alleged period is not substantiated by any materials and even the witness, DW-2, brought in by the defendant, did not support case of the defendant and therefore, found that there has been default in the payment of the rents for the alleged period. The appellate Court also found that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act , 1882, had been validly issued and therefore, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the defendant had preferred the above appeal.

8. Mr.B.Jameelarasu, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the defendant that been regularly paying the rent and there had been no default and further, the advance was available with the plaintiff, which could have been adjusted towards the payment of rent. It is his vehement contention that the suit