IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-03-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI SA No. 220 of 2025 and CMP No. 6593 of 2025 A.R. Kaviya Appellant(s)

Vs Sukumar Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgement and decree dated 19.10.2023 in AS No. 57 of 2022 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore confirming the judgement and decree order dated 25.03.2022 passed in OS No.1709 of 2019 on the file of III Addl. District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

For Appellant(s): Mr.Raja Srinivas for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates For Respondent(s): Mr. C. Veeraraghavan

JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1709 of 2019 on the file of III Addl. District Munsif, Coimbatore, which was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking a direction directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the possession of suit property as described in the plaint schedule and the same was decreed in favour of plaintiff. Against which, the defendant preferred an appeal before the I Addl. Sub-Court, Coimbatore in A.S.No. 57 of 2022 and on hearing both sides, the first appellate judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the findings of trial judge. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the defendant had preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of direction directing the defendant to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property stating that the suit property belong to him and the defendant entered into tenancy agreement for the period of one year and paid an advance amount of Rs.40,000/-, thereby she was inducted as a tenant from 28.10.2010 for the monthly rent of Rs.3500/-. After the expiry of the said period of one year, again it was extended with the condition to enhance the rent by 10%. While so, son of plaintiff needs the suit property to conduct his own business. So, after the completion of tenancy, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate and hand over the premises, instead of that, she gave a complaint against him before the police station and also filed a suit in O.S.No.2761 of 2012. To avoid further complications, on negotiations in the presence of panchayat, there was a further agreement of five years tenancy was entered on 31.07.2013 with a condition that on or before 27.11.2017, the defendant has to vacate the premises. But, with ulterior motive, the defendant filed another suit in O.S.No 1116 of 2015, wherein she prayed not to vacate the premises except due process of law and the same was granted in her favour on 09.07.2019. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit after issuance of notice by terminating the tenancy, since the premises is required for his son's business purpose. The defendant gave the reply, but not inclined to vacate the premises. Hence, the suit was filed.

4. The defendant contested the suit admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant and also admitted the tenancy, but she contended that she has not committed any wilful default, but the plaintiff caused interference. Hence, she filed a suit against the plaintiff not to cause interference unlawfully in the year 2012, thereafter compromise was entered in the year 2013. Again the plaintiff caused interference. Hence, she filed another suit in the year 2015, wherein she obtained an order of injunction not to vacate except due process of law. She gave suitable reply to the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff had owned other buildings, hence he gave false requirement. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On hearing both sides as well as considering the evidence on record, the trial judge held that the landlord and tenant relationship was admitted between the parties and the evidence of P.W.1 reveals that as per terms of lease agreement, enhanced rent was not paid