T C THIAGARAJAN Vs. V K LAKSHMINARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 254 of 1987 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore are the Appellants herein and the 1st Respondent - V.K. Lakshminarayanan (since deceased) was the sole Defendant in the suit. The said suit was filed for recovery of possession of the suit property from the deceased sole Defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 15,300/-representing the rent for 3 years and for future damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 1000/-per month from the date of suit till date of possession. During pendency of the said suit, the deceased sole Defendant filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 1163 of 1987 before the trial court under Section 9 of The Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (herein after referred to as "the City Tenants' Protection Act") for a direction to the Plaintiffs to sell the suit property namely, the land to the deceased sole Defendant. The trial court by decree and judgment dated 28.09.1992 decreed the suit as prayed for. By a separate order, the trial court closed the interlocutory application in I.A. No. 1163 of 1987. Challenging the above decree and judgment in O.S. No. 254 of 1987, the deceased sole Defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 286 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. In the meanwhile, the deceased sole Defendant filed a civil revision petition in C.R.P. No. 3032 of 1992 before this Court challenging the order in I.A. No. 1163 of 1987 dated 03.07.1992. this Court by order dated 04.10.1993 allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order in I.A. No. 1163 of 1987 and remitted the same to the District Court, Coimbatore for disposal along with A.S. No. 286 of 1992. On receipt of the same, the said application in I.A. No. 1163 of 1987 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore was renumbered as I.A. No. 5374 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. During pendency of the same, the Appellant filed an application in I.A. No. 5157 of 1992 under Order 41, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure to stay the operation of the decree in O.S. No. 254 of 1987 pending disposal of the appeal in A.S. No. 286 of 1992. The learned District Judge, thus, heard A.S. No. 286 of 1992, I.A. No. 5374 of 1994 and I.A. No. 5157 of 1992. jointly and by a common judgment dated 19.09.1994 disposed them of all. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court in O.S. No. 254 of 1987 and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court held that the deceased sole Defendant was entitled for the benefit of Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act and remitted the application in I.A. No. 1163 of 1987 to the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge with a direction to proceed with further as provided in Section 9 (1)(b) of the City Tenants' Protection Act. Challenging the above decree and judgment of the first appellate court the Plaintiffs are before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiffs in brief is as follows: The suit property was originally owned by one T.S. Chandrasekaran S/o.Samu Iyer. The Plaintiffs are the children of T.S. Chandrasekaran. On 01.10.1975, T.S. Chandrasekaran and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement by which T.S. Chandrasekaran leased out the suit property to the Defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 425/-. According to the Plaintiff, prior to the said lease agreement, T.S. Chandrasekaran was owning a building and machinery on the suit property wherein he was running a saw mill. But, unfortunately, the saw mill was destroyed partially in a fire accident. T.S. Chandrasekaran also fell ill. It was because of the said condition, T.S. Chandrasekaran leased out the entire property along with a license to run the saw mill under a composite lease to the Defendant. To put it precisely, the lease was not only for land, but also for the building and the machinery including the license. The lease commenced from 01.10.1975. The monthly rent payable @ Rs. 425/-is to be calculated from the first of every English calendar month. Ex.A.1 is the lease deed. T.S. Chandrasekaran died in the year 1981. But, the Defendant did not pay any rent to T.S. Chandrasekaran while he was alive or to the Plaintiffs after his death. Taking advantage of a clause in the lease deed, the Defendant made only some repairs of the superstructure which was damaged in the fire accident. But, he did not pay any rent. After the demise of T.S. Chandrasekaran, having inherited the suit property, the Plaintiffs tried to persuade the deceased sole Defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. But, he did not come forward readily to obey. Therefore, a legal notice was issued on 28.05.1986 in this regard calling upon the him to hand over the vacant possession. But, no reply what so ever was given for the said notice by him. In those circumstances, the Plaintiffs filed the suit for appropriate relief.

(3.) In the written statement, the execution of the agreement dated 01.10.1975 [Ex.A.1] is admitted by the deceased sole Defendant. But, according to the specific case of the Defendant, what was leased out was only a vacant site measuring 100 feet x 120 feet in S.F. No. 409 / 2 in Singanallur Village, Coimbatore District and it was not a composite lease including the building and machinery. On the date of execution of lease agreement (Ex.A.1), the suit property was only a vacant site since the entire superstructure had already been damaged in the fire accident. As a matter of fact, T.S. Chandrasekaran closed down the business because of the said fire accident. Thus, the vacant site alone was leased out and possession thereof was given to the Defendant.