THULASIBALAN Vs. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants. the owners of the suit property let out the same to the respondent on 15.2.1991 for a period of 11 months. The lease was not renewed. Since the property was constructed within 5 years before the suit was filed, the property was not subject to the purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. However, the appellants had filed a rent control proceedings which were dismissed on 27.7.1993 on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Act (18 of 1960) will not apply. Another notice was given by the appellant on 3.9.1993 calling upon the respondent to vacate the premises on or before 31.10.1993. The respondent did not vacate and so the suit was filed.

(2.) The respondent attacked the notice as being invalid in law and not according to the provision of the Transfer of Property Act and also denied the averments in the plaint of wilful default in paying rents

(3.) Actually, two suits were filed by the appellant against two tenants. Both the suits were decreed on 10/12/1997, giving each of the defendants two months' time to vacate the premises. Both the defendants filed appeals. One appeal was dismissed confirming the decree for possession. But the appeal filed by the respondent, herein was allowed and therefore, the present second appeal has been filed. The question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether the occupation of the respondent after the expiry of lease would confer on him the status of a tenant holding over entitled to a notice of termination of tenancy?