A tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord when he has acknowledged the landlord's ownership through payment of rent.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 23, 2016 passed in A.S.No.594 of 2008 by the 'learned XVIII Additional Judge, XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai' ['First Appellate Court' for short] whereby the Judgment and Decree dated October 6, 2007 passed in O.S.No.4736 of 2005 by the 'learned II Assistant Judge, II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai' ['Trial Court' for short] was confirmed.

2. Originally, one Rose Gramani was the sole defendant. During the pendency of the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, he passed away and hence, his three sons were brought on record as his legal heirs / representatives, as Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 before the First Appellate Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the 1st Respondent herein - Temple will be referred to as the ‘plaintiff’, the said ‘Rose Gramani’ will be referred to as the ‘sole defendant’.

Plaintiff's case

3. The Suit Property is the land admeasuring approximately 2500 sq.ft., located at Plot No.116, Door No.305, Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029, and comprised in Survey No.70/2, Town Survey No.2. The Suit Property is owned by the plaintiff - 'Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Thirukoil', which is a Hindu religious temple under the control of the 'Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department' ['HR & CE Department' for brevity]. The Suit Property was originally leased out to one Audilakshmi Ammal on the condition that no permanent structure shall be put up in the land nor any additions or alteration be executed, without written approval from the plaintiff and the HR & CE Department.

3.1. During inspection, the plaintiff discovered that the sole defendant - Rose Gramani was in occupation of the Suit Property and that the tenant - Audilakshmi Ammal had passed away, which the sole defendant failed to inform the plaintiff about. Even if the sole defendant claims to be the legal heir of the tenant - Audilakshmi Ammal, he has not applied to the HR & CE Department to transfer the tenancy rights into his name. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the sole defendant is illegally occupying the Suit Property and has no right to remain in possession of it.

3.2. The tenant - Audilakshmi Ammal was irregular in paying rents and there are arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1100/- for the period from January 2003 to October 2004. Inspite of repeated demands, the amount was not paid. The sole defendant, being in occupation of the Suit Property, is liable to pay the arrears of rent payable by the deceased tenant - Audilakshmi Ammal.

3.3. The Suit Property is situated in one of the busiest localities in the Chennai City having all the locational advantages and if it is let out in public auction, it would fetch not less than Rs.2,000/- per month as rent. The land value shot up and the plaintiff has to get a fair return from the Suit Property. Taking those into consideration, fair rent for the Suit Property was fixed by the HR & CE Department at Rs.11,715/- per month from November 1, 2001 onwards, and the same was communicated to the tenant - Audilakshmi Ammal through Lett