PADMALAKSHMI Vs. VALLIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an interesting appeal which arises from proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act.

(2.) O.S.No.548 of 1995, on the file of the learned District Munsif at Ponneri was initiated by two persons, namely, Ravanammal and Padmalakshmi. It was their case that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and one Kamalammal, the 1st defendant was their tenant. The monthly rent was Rs.8.00 and the tenancy was oral. The 2nd defendant Valliammal is said to be the sub-tenant to the suit property. The property had been sub-let according to the plaintiff without their knowledge and consent.

(3.) The plaintiff further pleaded that the rent for over a period of 36 months had not been paid prior to the presentation of the plaint i.e. on 6/4/1985. The plaintiff further pleaded that the 1st defendant seem to have sold the superstructure to the 2nd defendant along with the leasehold rights and as such that the 2nd defendant was not entitled to the protection of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act of 1921 [Hereinafter referred to as (CTP Act)]. Prior to the presentation of the plaint, a notice had been issued on 3/5/1984 to the defendants terminating the tenancy. In the said notice, 3 months time was granted to vacate and hand over possession. The plaintiff sought for the following reliefs:-