PERUMAL KONAR Vs. G RAVINDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful first defendant in both the courts below, is the appellant.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession from the 1st defendant in respect of first schedule property and also claimed a sum of Rs.90/= per month by way of damages for use and occupation. The father of defendants 2 to 4, viz., Subramania Karaiyalar purchased the 1st schedule property under a registered document dated 13.07.1945 from Kirudhu Rowthar and on his demise, in the family partition, this property as well as other properties fell to the share of defendants 2 to 4. The 1st schedule property was leased out to the 5th defendant on a monthly rent and thereafter, the 2nd schedule property, which is a portion of the 1st schedule property, was leased out by the 5th defendant in favour of the 1st defendant on 14.11.1980 on a monthly rent of Rs.90/= and the rent is payable on the 5th of every English calendar month. However, the 1st defendant had trespassed into the other properties also on 01.06.1982 and he did not pay the rent regularly. The 5th defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.451 of 1985 against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant took a plea that the 5th defendant had no right whatsoever to lease out the same and the property belongs to defendants 2 to 4. Subsequently, the 1st defendant took the schedule mentioned property from defendants 2 to 4 on the same monthly rent and enjoyed the property. The 1st defendant also gave evidence that the 1st schedule property belongs to defendants 2 to 4. Subsequently, the suit filed by the 5th defendant was dismissed on 24.12.1986. The 5th defendant also preferred A.S.No.56 of 1987 and the appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiff for valid consideration, purchased the 1st schedule property from defendants 2 to 4 and others under a registered document dated 15.09.1993 and also effected transfer of assessment in his name and is paying tax. A Rectification Deed was also entered into on 27.09.1993. Thereafter, the 1st defendant filed a suit on the file of District Munsif Court, Tenkasi in O.S.No.576 of 1993 against the plaintiff herein as well as defendants 2 to 4 for permanent injunction, wherein the 1st defendant admitted that he is enjoying the property as a tenant, but would state that he had put up superstructure in the property. Defendants 2 to 4 also filed Rent Control Original Petition No.6 of 1990 against the 1st defendant herein for eviction from the schedule mentioned property. But the 1st defendant took a plea that the site belongs to the 5th defendant and he had taken the site only on lease and subsequently put up construction bearing door No.59-B. Since defendants 2 to 4 are related to the 1st defendant, on their request, he had signed in blank papers and it was used for the purpose of creating lease deed and other documents. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 4. He also claimed benefits under the City Tenants' Protection Act. The application filed by the 1st defendant claiming benefits under City Tenants' Protection Act was dismissed. The rent control petition filed by defendants 2 to 4 was also dismissed. Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 1992 was filed by defendants 2 to 4 and thereafter, the plaintiff sent a notice to the 1st defendant, for which he sent a reply denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement and denied the various averments in the plaint. He denied the title of the plaintiff or defendants 2 to 4 in respect of the property. He took the vacant site on lease from the 5th defendant and put up superstructure and, as such, he is entitled to claim benefit under the City Tenants' Protection Act. In order to defeat the suit O.S.No.451 of 1985, which was filed by the 5th defendant, he had joined hands with defendants 2 to 4 and signed in blank papers as if there is a lease deed. Rent control petition 6 of 1990 filed by defendants 2 to 4 was subsequently dismissed and rent control appeal was also preferred and the same is pending. The notice sent by the plaintiff is not valid under law since 15 days' clear notice was not given. The court fee paid is also not proper and correct. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief.