A tenant admitting landlord-tenant relationship cannot deny title. Unauthorized permanent construction violating lease permits termination and eviction. Rent default supports eviction. Concurrent factual findings remain undisturbed absent substantial question of law in second appeal.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated March 12, 2008 passed in A.S. No. 2 of 2007 on the file of 'the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur' (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), confirming the Judgment and Decree dated October 30, 2006 passed by 'the District Munsif, Tiruvallur' (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), 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.

3. The suit property herein is a 25 Cents vacant land in Survey No.509/B2 in Ikkadu Village, Tiruvallur Taluk & District, owned by the Plaintiff - Devasthanam vide registered Deed dated May 7, 1903.

4. Case of the Plaintiff - Devasthanam is that the Suit property was leased out to Defendant's father - Sundara Nadar by the Plaintiff - Devasthanam under a Muchalika dated July 1, 1961. Rent was fixed at Rs.3.50/- per month. The terms of the Muchalika expressly prohibited sub- lease. It also prohibited the lessee from putting up any permanent structure in the suit property. Contrary to the terms of the Muchalika, the Defendant's father erected a permanent structure without any permission from the Plaintiff - Devasthanam. Hence, the Plaintiff - Devasthanam issued notice to Defendant's father calling upon him to handover vacant possession of the suit property on or before July 1, 1975. Further, the Plaintiff - Devasthanam has filed various Suits, seeking recovery of possession and arrears of rent. Despite the Suits being decreed and the same being confirmed in appeal, the Defendant's father refused to pay rent as well as the arrears of rent. After the demise of the Defendant's father, the Defendant became the tenant holding over and even he did not pay the rent and the arrears of rent. Hence, the Plaintiff - Devasthanam issued notice on March 15, 1999 to handover possession of suit property on or before July 1, 1999. The Plaintiff - Devasthanam also sought for enhancement of rent to Rs.375/- per month thereby for the period from June 30, 1996 to June 30, 1999. Despite notice, the Defendant did not come forward to deliver possession. Hence the Suit for eviction and delivery of vacant possession of the suit property.

5. The Defendant filed a written statement admitting that the Defendant's father was a lessee under the Plaintiff - Devasthanam for more than 38 years. The Defendant's father and the Defendant together constructed a residential house worth Rs.1,50,000/- in the suit property and the Defendant continues to reside there even after the demise of his father. The Plaintiff - Devasthanam enhanced the rent to Rs.125/- per month. As the Plaintiff - Devasthanam refused to receive rent directly, the Defendant deposited the same before Court in the Plaintiff's Suit for arrears of rent. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff - Devasthanam issued notice dated March 15, 1999 unreasonably enhancing the rent to Rs.375/- per month, without any basis. The Defendant is ready and willing to pay the earlier rent of Rs.125/- per month which is a fair and reasonable one. It is hereby denied that the suit property is required for the Plaintiff's own use and occupation. Stating so, the Defendant sought for dismissal of the Suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession?

(ii) To what other reliefs the Plaintiff is entitled to?"

7. On the side of the Plaintiff, plaintiff's representative - Srinivasan was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 & A2 were marked. On the side of the Defendant, the Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs. B1 to B3 were marked.

8. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court found that