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 file 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 provisions to the Transfer of Property Act and also denied the averments in the plaint of wilful default in paying rents.

(3.) EXCEPT to point out to a phrase in the plaint, the respondent in this case has not been able to establish that the appellant assented to his continuance in possession as a tenant. In the Federal Court decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Judges held that, "the principle underlying in Section 116 of the Transfer of the Property Act is implied contract and test of renewal of tenancy is the consensus between the parties and not an option exercisable by the lessor alone a nd when a tenant holds over after the expiration of lease wants to demonstrate that there was a renewal of lease he must show that there was a mutual agreement to this effect which may be an implied Act or an explicit one." It cannot be seriously said that there was any such mutual agreement in this case. On the other hand the landlord has taken a series of steps to show that he was not interested in renewing the lease. In the first place, the lease itself is only for 11 months and before the expiry of the 11th of the month t he appellant had issued notice which states that he wanted the property back, then he filed thought misguidedly a Rent Control Petition for eviction. He refused to receive rents. The respondents had to resort to the provisions of Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act. The Rent Control Petition was dismissed on the ground the remedy of the appellant was to file a civil suit. By way of abundant caution, they had issued the notice on 3.9.1993, and then he filed the suit. The notice dated 3.9.1993 itself was redundant and was not necessary since the lease had clearly expired as per Section 111 (a) of the Transfer of property Act.