A tenant is estopped from challenging a landlord's title in the absence of rival claims, and rent enhancements cannot be applied retrospectively, remaining effective only from the date of formal notice to the tenant.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated January 29, 2001 passed by 'the Sub Court, Tiruvallur' (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') in A.S. No. 16 of 2000, partly confirming and modifying the Judgment and Decree dated April 07, 2000 passed by 'the District Munsif, Tiruvallur' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in O.S. No.208 of 1999, the Appellant/Defendant therein has preferred the present Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their array in the Original Suit before the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff - Devasthanam filed a Suit in O.S. No. 208 of 1999 against the Defendant, seeking a decree directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.13,500/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit.

4. Vacant land of an extent of '25 Cents in Survey No. 509 /B2, situate at Ikkadu Village, Tiruvallur Taluk & District' is the ‘suit property’ herein. Before the Trial Court, it was not disputed by the Defendant that the suit property belongs to Plaintiff - Devasthanam. However, at the stage of Second Appeal before this Court, the Defendant has filed C.M.P. No.5099 of 2023 seeking to receive additional documents and is thereby ultimately attempting to deny the title of the Plaintiff - Devasthanam. The said aspect shall be delved into later by this Court.

5. The case of the Plaintiff - Devasthanam is that the Defendant's father was a tenant under the Plaintiff. There had been a series of Suit filed by the Plaintiff - Devasthanam against the Defendant's father for recovery of rent. The said Suits were contested by the Defendant, decreed and were later even confirmed in appeal. Post the demise of Defendant's father, the Defendant continued as a tenant holding over. Subsequently, as per the periodical instructions of 'the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department' ['HR & CE Department' for short], the Plaintiff - Devasthanam enhanced the rent from Rs.125/- to Rs.375/- per month, based on the then guideline value, by way of a notice dated March 15, 1999. The Defendant, by reply dated April 07, 1999, refused to pay the enhanced rent and also denied the Plaintiff's right to recover possession. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of rent for the fasli years 1405 to 1407 [June 30, 1996 to June 30, 1998] at the rate of Rs.375/- per month.

6. The Defendant filed a written statement admitting that the Plaintiff - Devasthanam is the owner of the suit property and that the Defendant is the tenant for the past 30 years. Lastly, the Defendant was paying Rs.125/- per month as fixed by Court and he had been regularly paying the same. The Plaintiff - Devasthanam is aware of the fact that the Defendant had erected a superstructure worth more than Rs.2,25,000/-. Each Fasli year, the Plaintiff - Devasthanam demanded increased rent which the Defendant could not oblige. At one point of time, the Plaintiff - Devasthanam enhanced the rent to Rs.375/- per month which is unreasonable. It was further contended that the guideline value cannot be the basis for fixing rent, particularly when the suit property is situated in a village. Though the Defendant is ready and willing to pay Rs.125/- as rent, the Plaintiff - Devasthanam is not receiving the same and hence, the Defendant is depositing the same in Post Office. The Defendant expresses his willingness to continue paying rent at Rs.125/- per month. According to him, the Plaintiff has no righ