S R RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. NEELAMEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18-10-1996 by a learned single Judge of the High Court disposing of three inter-connected matters between the parties.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the appellant-Radhakrishnan had taken on lease a property (hereinafter referred as the "suit property") on rent from one Thanakachalam vide registered lease deed dated 2-2-1970. The lease was for a period of one year and the monthly rent was Rs. 35/-. It is stated in the lease deed that the building constructed in the premises did not have a roof and the tenant had to put up a roof as well as such other construction as was required for running a printing press in the premises. The cost of providing electricity and water connection in the premises and of improvements in the building had to be calculated and it was to be paid by the landlord to the tenant at the time of handing back vacant possession of the premises by the tenant to the landlord. It appears that after taking the premises on lease tenant carried out certain improvements therein and started the business of running a printing press there. The tenant took along with him in the business his two younger brothers.

(3.) The property was purchased by the respondent-plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed dated 16-6-1979. The purchaser served a notice (Ex. B1) on the tenant on 26-11-1979 calling upon him to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. The tenant sent a reply dated 7-12-1979 (Ex. B2) to the notice stating that he had nothing to do with the property as defendant Nos.2 and 3 were in possession thereof. The landlord was asked to approach defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for rent as well as for possession. The landlord sent another notice dated 22-12-1979 (Ex. A3) to all the defendants calling upon them to deliver possession of the suit premises. Ultimately the landlord filed a suit for ejectment on 19-6-1980 impleading all the three brothers as defendants. One fact which needs to be mentioned here is that on 30-5-1977 defendant No. 1, the tenant executed a release deed in favour of his younger brothers i.e. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 relinquishing his entire interest in the business of the printing press which was carried on in the suit premises in their favour.