K RAVI Vs. K VICTORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representative of the petitioner in I.A.No.434 of 2002 in O.S.No.114 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE suit in O.S.No.236 of 1988 (later re-numbered as O.S.No.114 of 2002) was filed by one Kannappan, claiming to be the owner of the suit property, for recovery of possession. THE case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant in that suit viz., Venkiah alias Venkatesalu was the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the vacant site and without the consent of the plaintiff, the said tenant Venkiah alias Venkatesalu sublet the portion of the land let out to him and also sold the superstructure to one Krishnan Nair and the second defendant Bhakyam, who claims to be the wife of Krishnan Nair, was only a sub-tenant and she is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and the main tenant was not in possession of the property and therefore, the suit was filed for the relief prayed for.

(3.) THE Trial Court accepted the case of Bhakyam and held that she is entitled to the benefits of City Tenants Protection Act and though she was inducted into possession by the main tenant, the landlord viz., Kannappan was collecting rent from her and that is evidenced by Exs.P9, P10 to P17 series and therefore, the Bhakyam is a tenant as per the provisions of section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and she is entitled to the benefits under the Act and directed the court to fix the minimum extent of land and assess the value.