Landlord-tenant relationship established as a lease under the Transfer of Property Act; valid termination notice suffices for recovery of possession, regardless of alleged arrears.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, in A.S. No. 90 of 2012, dated 20.08.2013, which reversed the decision of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, in O.S. No. 529 of 2008 dated 13.08.2012.

3. In this appeal, the plaintiff before the Trial Court is the appellant, and the defendant is the respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in the same rank as they stood in the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff association is the owner of the suit property situated in Namakkal Town, which was leased to the defendant’s father, late Kulandaivel, for running a restaurant known as 'Amudha Hotel'. After his death, the defendant continued in possession as tenant, paying monthly rent of Rs. 5,100/-, which was paid up to May 2008 but has been in arrears thereafter. In May 2008, the defendant, without consent, made unauthorized alterations by damaging the cement floor, fixing tiles, and altering the walls, thereby weakening the building despite objections by the plaintiff. As the tenancy was one at will, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 26.07.2008 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the defendant to vacate by 01.09.2008. The defendant replied with false allegations, claiming permission and a tenancy agreement, but produced no proof. A rejoinder was issued on 06.09.2008, and since the defendant failed to vacate or pay rent for June to August 2008, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking recovery of possession of the property and arrears of rent of Rs. 15,300/-.

5. The defendant admits that the suit property was originally leased to her late father, who ran a restaurant, and that she has continued as tenant after his death by paying Rs. 2,000/- as name transfer fee and Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance. She states that rent was regularly paid up to April 2008 at Rs. 4,250/-, later enhanced to Rs. 5,100/-, and though rent for June, July and August 2008 was tendered by money orders, the plaintiff wrongfully refused to accept it, compelling her to deposit rent in O.P. No. 1/2008 before the District Munsif Court, Namakkal, without any arrears up to May 2009. Allegations of unauthorized alterations are denied; according to her, repairs such as fixing tiles, replacing broken roof tiles and laying pipes were done with the plaintiff’s knowledge to maintain hygiene and safety after adjoining structures collapsed, and she even paid property tax and Rs. 15,000/- towards water and sewerage charges. She denies having demolished walls or damaged the building, asserting that only minor works were carried out to prevent risk to life and property. The tenancy is based on a long-standing verbal agreement; she has never violated its terms and continues to pay rent. Hence, the plaintiff’s claim for arrears and eviction is false, malicious, and unsustainable, and the suit must be dismissed with costs.

6. The Trial Court framed issues on arrears, alterations, entitlement to possession and reliefs, examined P.W.1 with Exs.A1–A3, D.Ws.1 and 2 with Exs.B1–B7, and considered the Commissioner’s report and plan (C1 and C2). It held that rent had been duly tendered by money orders and later deposited in court, proving no arrears; that the alleged alterations were in fact repairs carried out with consent after the southern wall collapsed, and allegations of demolition of four walls were unproved.

7. The Trial Court observed that Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that, in the absence of a contract, local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to