P PREMA Vs. K ARUMUGHAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has preferred this Second Appeal. THE defendant entered into a lease arrangement with the plaintiff under Ex. A1 dated 23.7.1981 with respect to the suit property for a period of three years. After the expiry of the period, the plaintiff filed the suit in March, 1986 for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation. THE plaintiff stated in the plaint that the defendant was liable for damages for use and occupation from 1.8.1984, that is, from the expiry of the lease transaction, But, in the prayer he restricted the claim for damages from 1.3.1986. THE suit was contested by the defendant claiming that she was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the suit was not maintainable. She also contended that there was no notice of termination of tenancy before the suit and, therefore, the suit was not sustainable.

(2.) THE Courts below have concurrently held against the defendant and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has come to this Court with the Second Appeal.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the contentions of parties, it is necessary to refer 10 the test of Ex. A1 so that the real nature of the transaction could be ascertained. The document bears the title ?Lease for three years?. The preamble reads as follows: