ARULMIGU DHANDAYUTHAPANISWAMI THIRUKKOIL, PALANI, THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PALANI Vs. K. RAMA IYER (DIED) AND K.R. HARIHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant wants possession of the suit property. From 1963, the respondent was permitted to run a canteen in the appellant's property. The permission was extended from time to time. The super structure on the suit property was renovated and expanded. The last such extension was given on 1.11.1976 permitting the respondent to remain there till 31.10.1978. The appellant issued a registered notice on 27.10.1978 calling upon the respondent to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.10.1978. The respondent filed an application to the Commissioner, H.R & C.E praying for extension of period to continue in the suit property. The petition was dismissed, but time was granted to the respondent to continue in possession till 31.10.1979. This order remains unchallenged. On 31.8.1979, the appellant again issued a notice directing the respondent to vacate the premises by 31.10.1979. The respondent filed O.S.968/79 claiming that he was a statutory tenant. The appellant denied this status. However, the appellant pleaded that regardless of the character of possession, be it licence or lease, the right of possession came to an end on 31.10.1979. This is the plaint in brief. The suit was filed.

(2.) According to the respondent the arrangement between the parties was a lease and not license. The rent was periodically increased. On the last occasion when the rent was fixed, it was agreed that his possession would not be disturbed for five years. Thereafter only at the instance of the Executive Officer, the application was filed under the provisions of H.R. & C.E. Act for continuation of the period of lease. The Commissioner dismissed the petition. But his rights as a statutory tenant still subsist. The Commissioner's order is merely recommendatory. After the expiry of the lease period, he continues to be a tenant holding over. He is a statutory tenant and the suit is not maintainable without terminating the tenancy under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The alleged notice is not valid. The suit must be dismissed. This is the respondent's defence.

(3.) Documents were marked. Neither party adduced oral evidence. The trial Court held that the arrangement was lease and the notice was not in accordance with Sec. 106 of the Act and dismissed the suit.