N.V. PANCHAPAKESAN Vs. K. SWAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the learned City Civil Judge in A.S. No. 324 of 1964. The facts that gave rise to this appeal may be briefly stated; the appellant herein filed a suit, O.S.No. 1382 of 1962 for recovery of possession of the suit property and for arrears of rent. The suit property measured 48 X 60 and it is a portion of door No. 12, Doraiswami Road, T' Nagar, Madras. The appellant filed the said suit on the basis that the suit property was given on lease to the respondent in December, 1948 subject to certain conditions, that the respondent put up a shed for running a fuel shop in 1949, that subsequently he had put up a bunk in 1952, that he was paying a rent of Rs. 15 per month, that the lease had been duly determined by a valid notice to quit, and that he is entitled to get recovery of the suit property as well as the arrears of rent due from the defendant -respondent.

(2.) THE respondent resisted the suit contending that he was entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants' Protection Act, that he is willing to purchase the appellant's right in the suit property and that he had applied Under Section 9 of the said Act for the purchase of the property in I.A. No. 2553 of 1962. The appellant contested the application filed by the respondent Under Section 9, on the ground that the transaction between him and the respondent was not a lease but only a licence, that in any event inasmuch as the suit site sought to be purchased was appurtenant to the residential building the respondent was not entitled to purchase the said site, and that the respondent had been paying only a low rental of Rs. 15 per month while the suit site can easily fetch a fair rent of Rs. 110 a month.

(3.) FROM the evidence adduced in the case by either of the parties, it is seen that the entire door No. 12, Doraiswami Road, T' Nagar, Madras was purchased by the appellant in the year 1944. Sometime thereafter he submitted a plan of the building to be constructed on the plot purchased by him. As there was considerable delay in getting the sanction for the building the appellant allowed the respondent to occupy a portion measuring 48' X 60' abutting the road for the purpose of running a firewood depot therein on a monthly payment of Rs. 15. Subsequently the respondent had put up a thatched shed measuring 15' X 20' in the aforesaid plot. Later, in the year 1952 he put up with the permission of the appellant a wooden bunk to serve as a stall for selling betelnuts, aerated waters etc. Subsequently in 1957 the respondent had converted the thatched roofing into a zinc shed roofing and extended the shed from 15' X 20' to 15' X 35' In the year 1961 the appellant issued a notice Exhibit B -I, dated 24th April, 1961, calling upon the respondent to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property after three months and offering him to pay a sum of Rs. 500 as compensation. The respondent replied under Exhibit A -I, dated 5th May, 1961, asserting that he is entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants' Protection Act. In view of the refusal of the respondent to vacate the suit site, the feelings between the parties became strained and as a result, there was shifting of the electricity meter from the suit portion to the main house. The respondent thereafter caused a notice, Exhibit B -19, dated 25th February, 1962, to be sent to the appellant complaining interference with the electricity supply to which the appellant replied under Exhibit A -2, dated 28th February, 1962. By a further notice, Exhibit B -2, dated 23rd March, 1962, the appellant demanded increased rent from the respondent for the suit premises and lastly the appellant gave Exhibit B -3, dated 4th April, 1962, terminating the tenancy of the respondent by 1st May, 1962, and demanding possession from the respondent. As the respondent did not surrender possession even after 1st May, 1962, the present suit came to be filed.