J U D G M E N T

The Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated

23.02.2021 passed in A.S.No.34 of 2016 on the fie of Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 30.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.192 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif Court at Nagapattinam.

2.The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit against the Appellant/Defendant for vacating and delivering the vacant possession of the suit property, to pay the past damages for wrong use and occupation from 01.07.2009, till the date of the suit and for future damages.

3.The case of Respondent is that Appellant became tenant under Respondent in the suit property, for the monthly rent of Rs.600/- payable on or before the 5th of every succeeding English calendar month. The tenancy is oral and is according to the English calender month. Respondent is a Public Religious Trust and Public Charitable Institution and the buildings owned by it, are exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 60 as amended by Act 23 of 73. Respondent sent a notice to the Appellant on 09.06.2009, terminating the tenancy with the expiry of the tenancy month June 2009 and requested the Appellant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property. Appellant received the notice and sent reply dated 26.06.2009, with false and frivolous allegations. Appellant has not chosen to vacate the premises and handover the possession to the Respondent, forcing to file Suit.

4.Appellant filed written statement admitting that Respondent is the owner of the suit property. However, suit filed for vacating the Appellant from the suit property on the grounds on which the Suit was filed have to be proved only by the Respondent. It is the case of the Appellant that, he is a tenant in respect of suit property from the year 1973. Initially, he paid monthly rent of Rs.50/- and it has been enhanced from time to time and lastly he was paying the monthly rent of Rs.600/-

per month. Appellant was taking care of the maintenance of the suit property. Though it was agreed to adjust the maintenance amount from the rent, the Respondent has not honoured its commitment. Whenever respondent demanded the suit property for the use of church, Appellant handed over the possession of the suit property. The motive for filing the Suit is that Appellant has established a Christian Assembly viz., Nagai Christ Assembly. Irritated against the establishment of Nagai Christ Assembly, this suit was filed, only with a view to vacate the Appellant from the suit property. Therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.

5.On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

“(i)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of delivery of vacant possession as prayed for?

(ii)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get to relief past and future damages as prayed for?

(iii)To what other reliefs and order as to costs?”

6.During the trial before the trial Court, no oral and documentary evidences produced on either side.

7.On considering the case of the parties, the trial Court found that there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the Respondent and the Appellant and a valid notice of terminating the tenancy has been given to the Appellant by the Respondent, terminating the tenancy from the end of tenancy month of June 2009. Therefore, learned trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for.

8.Aggrieved against the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2016. The learned first Appellate Judge also found that, there was valid termination of tenancy by the Respondent and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal.

9.Learned counsel for the Appellant canvassed this Second Appeal, only on a short point, that is, Respondent has not chosen to examine himself as witness or produced any documents, including n