M MUTHU Vs. ARULMIGU SUNDARESWARARSWAMY DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants who suffered decree before the lower appellate Court has filed this second appeal.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.6860 of 1986 before the Trial Court for ejectment. THE 1st appellant/defendant was in possession of the suit property bearing Door No.39, Bundar Street, Chennai-1. THE monthly rent was Rs.5,000. THEre are four floors. Each floor is measuring 3,121 sq.ft. THE respondent/plaintiff issued a notice under Ex.A1 dated 21.6.1986 determining the tenancy. THEreafter the respondent filed the said suit on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. THE lower Court dismissed the suit on the basis that the plaintiff waived the notice by accepting the rent subsequent to the issue of the notice and so the said suit without any notice cannot be sustained in law. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-temple filed appeal in A.S.No.315 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. THE lower appellate Court accepting the case of the appellant therein allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this second appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that mere demand and receipt of the amount mentioned as rent cannot be construed as renewal of lease and waiver of notice to quit. According to him, the tenant has not established that such receipt of rent was with the consent of waiving the notice and to renew the lease. According to him, there is no such evidence available, and the lower appellate Court has found that such intention or consent has not been established. THE learned counsel pointing out the evidence of P.W.1 has also submitted that the amount received was only by way of damages.