FARWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. D.HARIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in the original suit O.S.No.1620 of 2009 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant herein. The respondent herein is the owner of the building shown as the suit property. Admittedly, the suit property was taken for rent by the appellant herein from the respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.60,000.00 from 01.11.2005. Contending that since the building was less than 5 years old it is exempted from the application of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the respondent herein (landlord) chose to issue a lawyer's notice dated 22.09.2008 terminating the tenancy purportedly under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring the appellant herein/defendant to quit and hand over possession of the suit property to the respondent herein/plaintiff giving three months time from the date of receipt of the said notice. As the appellant/defendant did not vacate and hand over possession as demanded in the said notice, the respondent/plaintiff had to file the suit for the above said relief.

(2.) IN the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff has also stated that a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 paid as advance was available with him and the appellant/defendant had paid the rent upto September 2008 and that he was ready and willing to refund the advance amount on possession being surrendered by the appellant/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff has also averred that the agreed rent for the initial period of 11 months was Rs.60,000.00 per month and for the next 11 months, there would be an increase of 5% and after expiry of the second period of 11 months, there would be a further increase of 5%. Though the respondent/plaintiff has chosen to incorporate an averment in the plaint that the appellant/defendant was guilty of willful default in payment of rent, the suit was laid solely on the basis of termination of the lease by issuing a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) BASED on the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed two issues, one regarding the maintainability of the suit and the other regarding the reliefs to which the plaintiff was entitled. In the trial, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked on the side of the respondent/plaintiff, whereas DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the appellant/defendant.