P SENTHAMARAIKANNAN Vs. K SATHYENDRAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in the ejectment Suit in O.S. No. 2 of 1988 on the file of the III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is the Revision Petitioner. The Respondents filed the ejectment Suit under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act for eviction of the Revision Petitioner stating that the Revision Petitioner was the Tenant of the land under the Respondents and he committed willful default in the payment of rent for the land and therefore, the Suit was filed for recovery of possession after issuing proper notice under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act and the Revision Petitioner is also not entitled to any protection under the said Act as he has also sublet the premises viz., the land to another person and he is not in actual possession of the land.

(2.) The Revision Petitioner contested the Suit stating that he was the lessee in respect of 832 sq.ft. alone and not 2486 sq.ft. mentioned in the schedule and he has not sublet any land and the notice is not proper and therefore, he cannot be evicted. The Revision Petitioner also filed M.P. No. 541 of 1998 under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act to purchase the portion of the land over which he has put up construction and that Application was dismissed on 30.6.2003 holding that he has sublet the land without the consent of the Respondents and therefore, he was not in possession of the land which was given to him on lease and therefore, he is not a Tenant as defined under the Act and not entitled to the protection of the Act. Though the Revision Petitioner claims that he has filed an Appeal against the said order, as on date, no proof of filing such Appeal has been produced by the Revision Petitioner and the order passed under Section 9 of the Act in M.P. No. 541 of 1998 has become final. Meanwhile, the Respondents filed M.P. No. 2711 of 2003 under Section 3 of the City Tenants' Protection Act to assess the value of compensation payable to the Tenant and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and that Advocate Commissioner also, after inspecting the property, submitted a report stating that the value of the construction after depreciation would be 774,730/. and both the parties filed objections for the Commissioner's Report.

(3.) The learned III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai allowed the Application filed by the Respondents/Landlords holding that the value of the superstructure is Rs. 1,28,218/- and the Revision Petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation as he is not in possession of the property and has sublet the land to another person. The learned III Judge, Small Causes Court also directed the Revision Petitioner to vacate and hand over possession within three months and also decreed the ejectment Suit No. 2 of 1988 on the basis of the order passed in M.P. No. 2711 of 2003. These two Revisions are filed by the Revision Petitioner challenging the orders passed under Section 3 and in the ejectment Suit filed by the Respondents.