KARUPPIYA Vs. KUTTAIKULAM ALIAS PUDUKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the defendant before the trial Court.. THE respondent is one Pudukulam @ Kuttaikulam Vahayara Trust Pattukottai represented by its Managing Trustee C. Veeraswamy Chettiar. THE Trust instituted O.S. 184 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Pattukottai for recovery of possession of the suit site and superstructure therein after demolishing the additional shed put up by the appellant in the northern portion of the suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent or damage s. THEre is no dispute that the appellant is running a hotel in the name and style of ?Chetty Nadu Unavu Viduthi? in the disputed premises. THE tenancy is oral. THE appellant resisted the suit alleging that the Trust is the owner of the site only and that there is no tenancy with reference to building. According to him the superstructure originally belonged to one Govindaraju from whom he had purchased the same under Ex. Bl the sale deed dated 29.12.1970. He further contended that lease arrangement was on permanent basis and he was entitled to the benefits of Madras City Tenants Protection Act and the suit filed by one of the trustees alone is not maintainable.

(2.) THE trial Court found that the ownership of the superstructure vested with the Respondent/Trust and tenant is liable to deliver the suit building to the Trust and that he had to seek his relief under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act is respect of the additional shed put up by the appellant. Both the parties took up the matter in appeal before the Sub Court Pattukottai. While A.S. 82 of 1982 filed by the plaintiff/Trust related to the demolition of the shed put up in the northern portion of the suit property and delivery of vacant possession, the appeal by the tenant in A.S. 12 of 1983 related to the verdict on the superstructure. THE lower appellate Court dismissed A.S. 12 of 1983 without cost and allowed A.S. 82 of 1982 and ordered delivery of possession of the entire suit property after removal of the superstructure. In this second appeal the tenant assails the decree and judgment of the learned subordinate Judge in both the appeals.

(3.) EX. A10 is the leased deed executed by Kasinatha Chettiar on 15.12.1959 in favour of the plaintiff Trust. The eastern boundary of this shop is described as that of the Trust in the possession of Appanatha Devar. This would indicate that even in the year 1959 the Trust was the owner of the superstructure in suit site.