VASANTHA Vs. C RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has been brought forth seeking review of the judgment of this Court made in O.S.A.No.28 of 2009 whereby the Court by a judgment in O.S.A.Nos.28 and 55 of 2009 made an order of dismissal of O.S.A.No.28/2009 confirming the judgment in C.S.No.255 of 2006 seeking delivery of possession of the plaint mentioned property.

(2.) Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram would submit that the respondents were in possession of the premises having an extent of 1140 sq. ft. in No.40, South Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai, in their capacity as agreement holders; that there was no pleadings and no evidence oral or documentary to prove in what capacity they initially took possession and continued to be in possession of the same; that no person can claim any relief without any pleadings; that the plea that they enjoyed the status of tenants was neither taken nor proved by them; that it is stated in the plaint that the respondents are neither lessees nor licensees; that except a vague denial of the said averment, the respondents did not plead that they are tenants; that the fact whether the respondents are tenants was exclusively within their knowledge; that if the petitioner has to resort to eviction proceedings, then she has to file details of the terms of the lease of the premises between the respondents and the owners including the rents being paid by the respondents; that no evidence was given as to the quantum of rent paid by the respondents to the erstwhile owners or to the petitioner; that the petitioner has not been receiving rent from the respondents since the parties did not claim the jural relationship of landlord and tenant; that it is pertinent to note that no tenancy agreement has been marked as a document in the suit; that under the circumstances, no RCOP can be filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondents; that since the status of the respondents is not that of a tenant, but they are in possession as agreement holders, no evidence was given by the respondents on this aspect, and hence the judgment suffers from errors apparent and it has got to be reviewed.

(3.) In answer to the above, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.V.Jayaraman for the respondents would submit that the reasons adduced by this Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment would suffice, and hence the review application has got to be dismissed.