R.VASU Vs. MUNNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S. No. 43 of 2019, reversing the judgment of the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S. No. 6140 of 2013.

(2.) Appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title that they are an absolute owners of the superstructure, described as 'B' schedule and for direction to the respondent/defendant to vacate and handover the 'B' schedule property; permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his men, agents, servants or anyone from any way deal with the property described in the schedule namely Old door No. 319, New door No. 136, Avvai Shanmugam salai, Royapettah, Chennai - 14 measuring 540 sq.ft., either by way of putting up any temporary or permanent structure or alienating the same in any manner; to direct the respondent/defendant to pay Rs.6,000.00 every month for damage, use and occupation of the suit property.

(3.) Appellants are the absolute owners of the property bearing old No. 319, new No. 136, Avvai Shanmugam salai, Royapettah, Chennai - 14, by way of succession from late P.G. Raman. P.G. Raman, obtained the property by adoption from his grandfather Manickam pillai. Manickam pillai was having leasehold right over the land of Arulmigu Arunachaleswara Thirukoil. During the lifetime of Manickam pillai, his daughter filed suit against him and P.G. Raman for declaring that adoption deed is illegal and not binding upon her. The suit was dismissed. After dismissal of the suit, P.G. Raman is the absolute owner of the suit property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the death of Manickam pillai, P.G. Raman effected mutations in his name in the property tax card, water tax card and electricity card. He leased the portions to various tenants and collecting rents from them. P.G. Raman died intestate leaving behind appellants as surviving legal heirs. Appellants leased out the premises to third parties including the respondent. In or about March 2003, respondent purchased movable machineries from appellant's earlier tenant Sundaram and occupied a welding shop and residential portion and become a tenant. Initially, he had not paid any amount towards rent or advance. After, appellants gave complaint to the police, he agreed to pay monthly rent at Rs.2,500.00 for shop and Rs.3,500.00 for residential portion, exclusive of electricity charges. He paid advance of Rs.25,000.00 towards non-residential building and Rs.35,000.00 towards residential building. Respondent paid rents for both the premises till 2005 and after July 2005, he has not paid rent. The rental arrears for residential portion is Rs.1,26,000.00 from July 2008 to November 2011 and the rental arrears for non-residential portion is Rs.97,500.00 for the same period. After adjusting security deposit of Rs.25,000.00, respondent is liable to pay Rs.72,500.00 for non residential premises. A notice dtd. 14/9/2011, was issued to the respondent. After receiving the notice, respondent caused nuisance around the tenanted premises and to the neighbours of the appellants. Appellants requested him vacate the building, but respondent has not vacated. Therefore, the suit for the reliefs aforesaid.