IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Baskaran Appellant(s) in both S.As.

Vs Jeyakodi Respondent in both S.As.

PRAYER in S.A.No.290 of 2025 To set aside the Judgement and decree dated 21-01-2025 made in AS.No.22/2023 by the I Addl. Dist.Judge, Tindivanam, and consequently decree the suit in OS.No.135/2017 on the file of the Prl. Sub. Judge, Tindivanam.

PRAYER in S.A.No.289 of 2025 To set aside the Judgement and decree dated 21-01-2025 made in AS.No.53/2022 on the file of the I Addl. Dist. Court, Tindivanam and consequently decree the suit in OS.No.135 of 2017 on the file of the Prl. Sub.

Court, Tindivanam.

For Appellant(s): Mr.T. Saikrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

JUDGMENT

These appeals have been filed by the plaintiff seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21-01-2025 passed in AS.Nos.22/2023 and 53/2022 by the I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, and to decree the suit in OS.No.135 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam.

2. Before the Trial Court in the year 2017, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and delivery of possession of suit premises and also for recovery of arrears of rent. According to the appellant, the respondent/defendant entered into a lease agreement on 28.08.2014 in respect of the suit premises. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and agreed to pay a monthly sum of Rs.23,500/- towards rent and maintenance charges, out of which, Rs.10,000/- was towards maintenance. However, the defendant failed to pay the lease the lease amount for more than six months and thereby committed default. Therefore, the plaintiff approached the Court seeking eviction.

3. The defendant contested the suit by stating that a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-

was spent by her husband towards completion of construction in order to run a Hotel. Both parties contested the matter before the Trial Court. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Trial Judge found that the defendant/respondent not paid rent from 2014 and that arrears were outstanding even as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the Trial Judge decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the premises within two months and further directed the defendant to pay monthly rent calculated at Rs.5,000/- per month.

4.Aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court, both the parties preferred appeals. The defendant filed AS.No.53 of 2022 challenging the decree of eviction and the plaintiff filed AS.No.22 of 2023 disputing the rent fixed by the Trial Court. Both the appeals were jointly heard by the Appellate Judge. The appeal in A.S.No.53 of 2022 filed by the defendant was partly allowed, wherein the order of eviction was set aside, while direction relating to recovery of rent was confirmed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The Appellate Court held that the statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not properly complied and on that ground the suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal on the following grounds:

“1. The judgments of both the Courts insofar as the quantum of rent is concerned is contrary to facts, evidence on record and against the law.

2. The Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court insofar as reversing the judgment and decree for eviction is totally contrary to the facts, law and evidence and completely unsustainable.

3. The Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is totally perverse and contrary to the facts and law and also against equity.

4. The Judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein thereby setting aside the eviction order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, weight of the evidence and probabilities of the case and as such is liable to be set aside.

5. The Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that a notice for termination of