G.GANESAN Vs. P.V.RAJAPANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G .Ganesan is the tenant and P.V.Rajapandi is the landlord. The tenant filed a suit in O.S.No.345 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu for a bare injunction contending that the landlord was trying to forcibly evict him without adopting due process of law. Besides resisting the said suit, the landlord filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpettu for eviction of the tenant based on the alleged termination of lease probably on the belief that Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was not applicable to the suit property.

(2.) BOTH the suits were tried together and by a common judgment, O.S.No.345 of 2006, namely the suit filed by the tenant was dismissed and O.S.No.174 of 2007, namely the suit filed by the landlord was decreed. Challenging the said decrees passed by the trial Court dated 30.07.2010, two appeals came to be filed by the tenant, namely A.S.No.33 of 2010 against the decree passed in O.S.No.174 of 2007 and A.S.No.34 of 2010 against the decree passed in O.S.No.345 of 2006. Both the appeals were jointly heard and disposed by the learned Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu by a common Judgment and decrees dated 29.06.2011 confirming the decrees passed by the trial Court in both the cases. As against the decree of the appellate Court made in A.S.No.33 of 2010, S.A.No.819 of 2012 has been filed. As against the decree passed in A.S.No.34 of 2010, S.A.No.820 of 2012 has been filed. In both the second appeals, the tenant is the appellant and the landlord is the respondent.

(3.) SINCE the appellant relies on the notification by the Government of Tamil Nadu upgrading the erstwhile Town Panchayat of Maraimalai Nagar within which the suit property situates and contends that from the date on which it was upgraded to a Municipality, the rent control Act stood attracted, the learned counsel for the respondent concedes the said question is a question of law that could be raised in the said second appeal. So far as the other second appeal, namely S.A.No.820 of 2012 is concerned, admittedly there is no such direct question of law involved. However, it is admitted that the sustainability of the claim for injunction shall largely depend upon the outcome of the above said question involved in S.A.No.819 of 2012. In the light of the fact that the landlord has chosen to approach the Court for eviction, the said appeal also can be taken as an appeal fit for admission on the following question of law: