JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S.No.31 of 2017 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti in O.S.No.91 of 2013.

2. Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against Gnanasekara pandian for the relief of direction to vacate him from the suit property and surrender possession with the super structure therein and for costs.

3. The case of the respondent is that a suit property with super structure and oil mill machineries therein absolutely belongs to respondent. It was leased to Gnanasekara pandian. The lease agreement was executed on 01.06.2006 for three years. The lease agreement is an unregistered lease agreement. Gnanasekara pandian agreed to pay monthly rent at Rs.8,750/-. The lease period is for three years. Even after the completion of lease period Gnanasekara pandian has not vacated and he continued to pay monthly rent at Rs.8,750/-. Without the prior permission of the respondent and contrary to the conditions of lease agreement he installed additional machineries and altered super structure. After the expiry of the lease period, respondent repeatedly requested Gnanasekara pandian to vacate the suit property. But he did not vacate the suit property. Therefore, a notice dated 10.5.2013 was issued terminating the tenancy and calling him to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the suit property. It was replied on 13.05.2013. His possession is deemed to be that of a trespasser. In such circumstances, this suit is filed.

4. Gnanasekara pandian filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is contended that, he became tenant in 1967 and he is in continuous possession of the premises as a tenant. It is admitted that there was a fresh rent agreement entered into between the parties on 01.05.2006. When the tenancy expired on 31.05.2009, with an approval and consent of the respondent, he continued as a tenant by holding over on the same terms and conditions and depositing monthly rent in account of the respondent. Having accepted the rent, respondent cannot claim that Gnanasekara pandian is in unlawful possession of the suit premises. The respondent demanded exorbitant rent of Rs.15,000/- per month before the issuance of Advocate notice. The claim made in the notice that the suit premises is required for personal use of the respondent and that Gnanasekara pandian made alterations without getting permission from the respondent are all not true. The claim that the suit premises required for demolition and reconstruction is also not true. Therefore, the suit has to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the defendant is the statutory tenant under the plaintiff?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of tenant in the suit property?

iii) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the respondent. DW1 was examined and no document was marked on the side of the appellants.

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge, found that respondent has not proved the claim made in the plaint and therefore, dismissed the suit. It appears that after the dismissal of the suit, the sole defendant Gnanasekara pandian died and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2017 impleading the legalheirs of the deceased Gnanasekara pandian. The learned First Appellate Judge, on reconsideration of oral and documentary evidence found that on the expiration of the fixed period of lease, the tenant becomes a “Tenant at sufferance”. No notice is required to evict a “Tenant at sufferance”. The respondent initiated legal proceedings by filing the suit for vacating the appellants and that is permissible in law. In this view of the matter, the learned First Appellate Judge reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit by allowing the