KASIVISWANATHAN AMBALAM Vs. RM MUTHIAH CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant before this Court and the plaintiff is the respondent. THE plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant stating that the suit property was purchased by him from the previous owner and the defendant was a tenant occupying a portion on a monthly rent of Rs. 18 and the building was used for nonresidential purpose and he had determined the tenancy and filed the suit for recovery of possession. THE defendant contended that he is entitled to protection under the City Tenants protection Act, and the suit is not maintainable.

(2.) THE trial Court held that the superstructure put up by the defendant on the land leased out to him was used for non-residential purposes and it does not come under the purview of the City Tenants Protection act and the notice issued is valid and accordingly it decreed the suit for eviction. Subsequent to the decree by the trial Court, a notification was issued under section 1 (2) of the Act, extending the Act to non-residential buildings in Pudukottai town. It was contended for the defendant in the lower appellate Court that in view of the notification extending the Act to non-residential buildings, section 11 of the Act is applicable and as there is non-compliance of the mandatory provision under section 11, the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed. THE lower appellate Court held that on the date when the notice Exhibit A-1 was issued by the plaintiff giving 15 days time for vacating the property, the Act had not been extended to non-residential buildings and the defendant was not entitled to notice under section 11 of the act and on that finding it confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant.