L T RAJAN Vs. K RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed against concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit was filed by the appellants herein for delivery of possession and for compensation.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs are as follows:- Defendants 2 to 7 are the heirs of one Tulasiram, who was a tenant under one Jehangir in respect of a vacant site in Door No.13. Tulasiram put up a tiled construction and was residing in it. Since he committed default in paying rent, notice dated 09.09.1969 was given by Jehangir demanding to vacate the premises within December, 1969. Thereafter, he filed O.S.No.166/70 for recovery of arrears of rent as well as possession of the property. In that suit, the tenant Tulasiram filed O.P.No.25/70 for a direction to sell the property to him. In that O.P., an order was passed on 13.10.1970 directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.12,012/- in Court deposit in three quarterly instalments beginning from 05.05.1971, failing which the owner of the property, Jehangir, shall pay a sum of Rs.5,720/- as compensation for the superstructure put up by the tenant Tulasiram and take possession of the vacant site. The Trial Court also ordered that interest at 9% per month shall be payable from the date of the order till handing over possession of the vacant site. The tenant Dulasiram did not comply with that order. Therefore, his heirs are estopped from claiming any right under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. On 07.08.1973, the eastern portion of the property along with the superstructure was sold by a registered sale deed. On 14.09.1973, another eastern side of the vacant site was sold by Jehangir to the first plaintiff by a registered sale deed. The suit property is the western portion of the Door No.13. The suit property was sold by Jehangir to the first plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 03.05.1974. In June, 1977, Dulasiram died and his heirs were in possession. After termination of tenancy on 31.12.1969, the defendants were not paying rent. The first plaintiff is the owner of the property, and the defendants have no right to continue in possession of the property. Therefore, the first plaintiff filed Small Causes No.262/79 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai against the defendants for compensation and the Court passed an order that the defendants shall pay Rs.3.75 per month as compensation. The superstructure in existence now has no value. Yet, the first plaintiff is prepared to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation. To the notice sent by the first plaintiff, the defendants sent reply notice giving false averments. Hence the suit for possession and for compensation. After the death of the plaintiffs' father, the suit property was managed by the first plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, on 13.10.1993, the co-owners of the property partitioned the property. The suit property has been now allotted to the second plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit property along with the superstructure belongs to the defendants. They filed O.S.No.265 of 1976 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, and consequently, Second Appeal No.165 of 1988 is pending on the file of this Court. The plaintiffs have no right to file the suit. It is not correct to say that Jaganhir sold the property to the first plaintiff. Jahangir had no right to sell the vacant site to the first plaintiff. It has been decided by various Courts that the defendants are the tenants of the suit property. No notice has been served on the defendants under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The defendants are prepared to pay a sum of Rs.5/- to 7/- per sq. ft. for the sale of the property to them. The superstructure is worth to Rs.75,000/-. When the Second Appeal is pending, a compromise was arrived at whereby the plaintiffs agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- for the superstructure. If the decree for possession is granted to the plaintiff, proper compensation should be given to the defendants.