MARIA Vs. ARCHBISHOP OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant who has concurrently lost before the Courts below has filed the instant Second Appeal. The challenge is to the judgment and decree of the XV Assistant City Civil Judge in O.S.No.4051 of 2014 which was confirmed by the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in A.S.No.174 of 2018. The above matter is listed today for admission and the caveator was also present. To appreciate the challenge to the concurrent judgment and decree, it is necessary to briefly set out the pleadings of both parties.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was tenanted and the defendant was the tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.250.00. This rent was exclusive of the charges for the consumption of electricity and water which was to be paid by the defendant directly. The houses in St. Marry's Church Colony where the suit schedule property was situated, was originally let out only for the purpose of propagating religion. Now, however, the plaintiffs themselves required the premises to enable them to carry out the charitable and religious activities. The defendant, who was a tenant, had attempted to lay a claim upon the suit schedule property and with this in mind, had put up a construction on the western side and eastern side whereby she had put up a construction to an extent of 490 sq.ft. without the consent of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had objected to the said activities despite which, the defendant had sent a reply notice denying their title to the property. As per the terms of the tenancy, the plaintiffs could pull down the unauthorized structure.

(3.) As per the terms of the lease entered into between the parties, the lease was terminable by issue of 15 days notice by either party. Exercising this right, the plaintiffs have terminated the defendant's tenancy with effect from 3/3/2014 and they had called upon the defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit property by 1/4/2014. It was also made clear that any amounts they would receive thereafter would only be towards damages and not rent. The plaintiffs had let out several other buildings in and around the said area to various occupants on a megre rent and they have not increased the rent to bring it on par with the prevailing PWD rates. This increase was not effected, since the plaintiffs wanted to put the premises for their own use and occupation. Despite receiving the termination letter dtd. 4/3/2013, the defendant did not come forward to vacate and handover the possession of the property. On the contrary, she had issued a reply dtd. 24/3/2014 setting out false claims, in which, she had gone to an extent of denying the plaintiffs' right to the property. Therefore, the plaintiffs had come forward with the suit for recovery of possession and a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the unauthorized construction measuring a extent of 495 sq.ft and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000.00 towards use and occupation from the date of filing of the suit till the date of handing over the possession.