LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-515

NARAYANA IYER Vs. ANANDAMMAL ADHEENA TRUST

Decided On December 23, 2020
NARAYANA IYER Appellant
V/S
Anandammal Adheena Trust Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal arises from the suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property, delivery of vacant possession after removing the superstructure and for recovery of arrears of rent. The defendant is the appellant.

(2.) The suit property belongs to M/s Anandammal Adheena Trust. The appellant entered into a lease agreement with the erstwhile Trustees and in occupation of the suit land. The lease between the Trustees and the appellant was renewed on 03/07/1985 for a further period of 17 years. After giving credit to the advance of Rs.300/- received by the Trust under the earlier lease agreement, additional advance of Rs.200/- received under the new lease. On termination of the lease, the Trust agreed to return Rs.500/-. The total money received as advance, without interest. The appellant was permitted to put up structure and carry on business, on condition he should remove the superstructure and hand over the vacant possession on expiry of the lease. The rent was fixed at Rs.120/- p.m payable on or before 5 th of every succeeding month. In event of default in payment of rent, the Trust is entitled to have the lease agreement terminated and recover the possession.

(3.) On the death of Mr.Thirugnanasambandham, the Former President of the Trust, Mr.P.Selvanathan was appointed as President of the Trust, as per the scheme decree passed in O.S.No.1 of 1998 by the Principal District Judge at Pondicherry. On 09/01/2002 through a letter the appellant was informed that he has defaulted in paying the rent from October 1997 and requested to pay the rent. The appellant failed to pay the rent and continue to commit default. Thereafter, notice through lawyer was issued to deliver the possession of the suit property free from superstructure by 03/07/2002. The notice dated 02/06/2002 was received by the appellant on 08/06/2002 but the appellant did not reply or complied with the demand. Hence the suit for ejectment and consequential relief.