Possession is crucial for a tenant's claim; without it, the declaration seeking recognition cannot stand.

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal had been filed on 19.01.2009 and came up for an admission on 05.08.2009 and thereafter, it had been adjourned and had finally, on 25.08.2009 notice regarding admission to the respondent was directed. Till this date, the appeal has not yet been admitted.

2.The plaintiff is the appellant. The parties would be referred in the same nomenclature as in the plaint. The plaintiff is a Partnership Firm and a tenant under the 1^st defendant in the ground floor of premises at No.31 Kandappa Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai – 600 001, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,850/-. It is contended by the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant had however, recognized that the 2^nd defendant as a tenant in the very same ground floor portion which was under the occupation of the plaintiff. Objecting to such recognition, the suit had been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful tenant of the ground floor portion of No.31 Kandappa Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai – 600 001 and for vacant possession. A further direction was sought for a declaration that the tenancy created between the 1^st and 2^nd defendants is illegal and for a mandatory injunction restraining the 1^st defendant from collecting monthly rent from the 2^nd defendant.

3.The suit in O.S.No.3528 of 1999 came up for consideration before the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and by a judgment dated 27.06.2003, the suit was decreed with costs. The 2^nd defendant then filed A.S.No.323 of 2003 and the 1^st defendant filed A.S.No.375 of 2003. Both the Appeal Suits came up for consideration before the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. By a common judgment dated 19.03.2004, the appeals were allowed. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had surrendered possession and that therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit any further and seek a declaration that the plaintiff is a lawful tenant. A finding was returned that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property. That is a specific finding on fact.

4.The suit had been purportedly filed that on the basis that the plaintiff was in occupation of the ground floor portion of the property at No.31 Kandappa Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai – 600 001. However even in the plaint, the plaintiff had admitted that the 1^st defendant had entered into a tenancy agreement with the 2^nd defendant and that the 1^st defendant is collecting rents from the 2^nd defendant. The plaintiff had also sought delivery of vacant possession of the suit property.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant, stated that on personal inspection of the premises, he was not able to locate the plaintiff firm which also evidently means that the plaintiff is not in possession any further in the premises.

6.Once the plaintiff is not in possession, a declaration that he is a tenant cannot be granted. The plaintiff, as a tenant, cannot question the right of the landlord to recognize the 2^nd defendant as their lawful tenant. The reliefs sought in the suit are not maintainable. The judgment of the trial Court proceeded on perverse grounds, by holding that, since the plaintiff is a registered Partnership Firm, the plaintiff could maintain the suit and seek declaration. But the primary issue is with respect to possession and one of the relief sought in the plaint is for recovery of possession. Once the plaintiff is not in possession, he cannot claim a declaration seeking recognition as a tenant.

7.The findings of the First Appellate Court are cogent, clear and precise. I find no reason to admit the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, as no Su