SETHURAMAN Vs. KOTTAIPATTI CHINNA PALLIVASAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the second appeals have been filed by the appellants/Legal Heirs of the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.Nos.24 and 25 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed and thereby the suits were decreed as prayed for.

(2.) For better appreciation and understanding, the parties are referred to as per their in rank in the suits.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is a registered Public Wakf as Wakf No.194/RMD and the second plaintiff is a Managing Trustee and Secretary of the first plaintiff and he is authorised by the Board and Jamath to conduct the cases. The properties bearing Door Nos.334 to 345 which are lying in a row in Railway Feeder Road at Virudhunagar, belonged to the first plaintiff. All these buildings are very old buildings and they have been leased out to several tenants on monthly rents. The defendant has been running a business in Door Nos.334 and 343 and he has been paying monthly rent of Rs.319/- for both the building bearing Door No.334 and vacant site adjacent to it (totally measuring 2376 sq. ft.) and Rs.127/- to the building bearing Door No.343. The first plaintiff decided to demolish all the buildings and to construct new complex building with 20 shops in a row in the ground floor and 20 lodging rooms and also to construct Marriage Hall in the first floor, for which necessary approval from Wakf Board and aid from the Central Wakf Council was sanctioned. In these circumstances, the tenancy in favour of the defendant and other tenants were terminated by registered notices dated 15.02.1988. After receipt of the notices, most of the tenants handed over vacant possession of the buildings. The defendant has sent replies with false allegations that he was a partner of Narayana Nadar, Chidambara Nadar and Co. and that he became the owner of the superstructure and he is the lessee of the site alone. The whole property is assessed under one assessment in the name of the first plaintiff and there is no separate assessment for superstructure in the name of the defendant. The defendant is not entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The first plaintiff being a public Wakf and registered Wakf, Rent Control Act is not applicable and hence, the suit is filed. Though the first plaintiff is entitled to file suit through its Managing Trustee and Secretary, in order to avoid objections of the defendant, the suits are filed in a representative capacity also. Thus, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for permitting them to file the suits in a representative capacity also; for delivery of vacant possession of the suit properties to the first plaintiff and for damages for use and occupation for a further period from the date of plaint till delivery of possession.