TMT. CHANDRA AMMAL Vs. K. KUPPAMMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 974 of 1990. The matter relates to the eviction under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Respondents 1 and 2 are the owners of the property. It devolved upon them through the original owner and that part is not disputed. The land has been given on lease to the third respondent and the third respondent had constructed the superstructure for the purpose of running a theatre to screen the movies and the lease was for 30 years from 4.6.1969. Ex.A-1 is the lease deed. The appellant is the sub-tenant of the third respondent. O.S. No. 1 of 1983 was instituted on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, for eviction on the ground of wilful default and also for forfeiture of tenancy. The trial Court dismissed the suit against which appeal was preferred. In the suit, I.A. No. 77 of 1983 was filed by the appellant claiming protection under Sec. 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921. But the same was not considered by the trial Court on the ground that the suit itself was being dismissed against which C.M.A. No. 373 of 1991 was filed by the appellant herein. Against the dismissal of the suit, A.S. No. 974 of 1990 was filed by the respondents and both the Appeal Suit and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal were heard by the learned single Judge and the judgment was rendered on 11.6.2002 allowing the appeal of the respondents 1 and 2 while dismissing the C.M.A. of the appellant. The result is this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submits that the judgment of the learned single Judge is erroneous for the reason that the suit was filed for eviction on the specific ground of default in rents and the trial Court was correct in dismissing the suit and no other consideration would arise excepting the consideration regarding default or otherwise of the rent. He also submits that the rent paid by the appellant was accepted and as such, the appellant has to be considered as a tenant and entitled to protection under Sec. 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act.

(3.) Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, countered the above arguments submitting that the learned single Judge was correct in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of efflux of time of lease and that whenever the lease expires by efflux of time, the question of issuance of any notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act does not arise and that during the pendency of the suit, if the lease expires by efflux of time, the same can be taken into consideration and that the learned single Judge has correctly applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Venkateswaralu Vs. Motor and General Traders, AIR 1975 S.C. 1409.