JUDGMENT

The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.467 of

2012 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli and in A.S.No.18 of 2015, by the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.467 of

2012, on the file of the trial Court for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein, the present respondents have been shown as defendants.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is a building consists of a shop and a residential house belonged to the first defendant and the defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of the first defendant. On 17.08.1990, the plaintiff taken the said premises for a rent of Rs.110/- per month and an advance amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the first respondent. Subsequently, on 06.12.1995, the first defendant obtained a sum of Rs.16,000/- from the plaintiff and instead of payment of interest, the first defendant allowed the plaintiff to stay in the premises and again on 10.11.2000, the first defendant obtained a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff and allowed him to continue the tenancy. From the year 1990 onwards, for the past 22 years, the plaintiff is running hotel business and out of the said income, the plaintiff is taking care of his family. Suddenly on 07.10.2012, the defendants came to the premises and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the premises, otherwise, with the help of the henchmen, will remove him from the said premises. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the above stated relief.

4. The first defendant has filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the suit property is not a residential/commercial premises and it is a commercial building and on 17.08.1990, the plaintiff entered into the premises as a tenant is not correct and all the amounts alleged to have been paid by him are also denied. The suit property belongs to the first defendant's husband Avudaiyappan, which is an ancestral property. The said Avudaiyappan's father was one A.Ponnusamy, whose first wife is Muthulakshmi and the said Avudaiyappan is the sole legal heir and the second wife/Seethalakshmi and their children are Jeyaraman, Perumal and Jeyalakshmi. The said A.Ponnusamy has filed a suit in O.S.No.472 of 1983 for partition. The disputed property is one of the property in the partition suit. The suit property does not belong to the first defendant.

The said property belongs to the defendants 2 and 3 also, as the legal heirs of Avudaiappan. The said property was devolved on the defendants after the death of Avudaiappan on 27.07.2011. Further, denied the amount of Rs.30,000/- being paid as an amount of Othi in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff has not provided any material to substantiate his claim and he has never been admitted as a tenant in the premises. If at all there was any agreement entered into between Avudaiyappan and the plaintiff, the same has not been clearly stated in the plaint. Before 27.07.2011, the first defendant was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. From the year 1990, for the past 22 years, the plaintiff is running a hotel and that he should prove the same, as he is doing a business there.

5. Further the averment made by the plaintiff that her husband received a sum of Rs.30,000/- is not known to the first defendant and if it is true, they are ready and willing to pay the said sum of Rs.30,000/- and after the payment, the plaintiff has to vacate the premises and hand over the same. Only when the first defendant claimed the premises back, the plaintiff has filed the suit and there is no landlord-tenant relationship exists and the plaintiff is not a tenant under the defendants. Further, the defendants have not let the premises for tenancy and if at all there is any relationship, it is only a money lending transaction and the person who has utilised the premises as