J U D G M E N T

The Appellant, who is the defendant in O.S.No.186 of 2011, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2015, passed by the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts, as averred by the plaintiff (respondent herein) in the original suit, are as follows:

2(i) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same under valid sale deed vide Document No.2537 of 2010 registered on 22.07.2010 on the file of Sub Registrar, Kodambakkam from her vendors, who had absolute right over the property as on the date of execution of sale deed. She, after the purchase of the said property, paid property tax and water tax and also transferred the Electricity Consumption Account in her name.

2(ii) Since the defendant unlawfully trespassed into the premises without any valid right, plaintiff issued legal notice on 30.08.2010 by calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises which was under her unlawful occupation, within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and also to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit property after the date stipulated in the legal notice. But the defendant refused to receive the said notice. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendant failed and neglected to vacate the premises and to pay the damages. The defendant is liable to pay the damages from 01.09.2010 onwards at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month till he vacates the premises.

2(iii) The plaintiff was put in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owners by her vendor, after paying entire sale consideration. An Assessment notice dated 08.04.2009 was issued by the Corporation of Madras to the vendors o the plaintiff. Therefore, the vendors of the plaintiff had been in absolute use and enjoyment of the property from the date of purchase from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board with reference to the application dated 28.02.1973 submitted by the vendors of the plaintiff to have the allotment in their name. As such from the date of allotment and execution of sale deed dated 28.03.1994, the vendors of the plaintiff had been in absolute use and enjoyment of the property.

2(iv) Vendors of the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Mrs.P.Sundari, so as to have the leasehold right for five years with effect from 30.05.1979 and the said Sundari was allowed to reside in the said premises for five years. Thereafter, the said Sundari left that premises without paying any rent payable to the vendors of the plaintiff but the defendant alleged to be the brother of said Sundari and he was allowed to make use and occupy the said premises without consent or concurrence of the vendors of the plaintiff. When the vendors of the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant the defendant failed and neglected to pay the rent and refused to vacate, but made himself liable to pay the charges as damage for the premise being occupied by him and declined to be called as a tenant. In the RCOP filed by the vendors of the plaintiff, the defendant stated that he was no more a tenant. Therefore, the vendors of the plaintiff did not further proceed the RCOP and asked him to vacate the premises by paying the damages for use and occupation. The intention of the defendant is to misrepresent before the Rent Control Court and to squat in the property unlawfully.

2(v) Eventhough the defendant is aware that he has no right to make use of the suit property, even after the legal notice, he has been unlawfully continuing in the premises and causing undue hardship and sufferings to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

3. The case of the defendant (appellant herein) as stated in the written statement is as follows:-

The defendant denied the plaint averments and stated that Mrs.Sundari Chandran, sister of this defendant, had entered into an agreement with the original owner of the suit properties while the property was in the stage of allotment from