ARIFF Vs. M F ALIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree rendered in A. S. No. 131 of 1989, which in turn arose out of the judgment and decree rendered in O. S. No. 262 of 1988. The defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 262 of 1988 for eviction and for collection of arrears of rent. The defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 payable on or before 5th day of every English calendar month. According to the plaintiff the defendant committed default in payment of rent for a period of five months from 1. 5. 1988 amounting to Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff sent a notice dated 27. 8. 1988 to the defendant calling upon the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession on or before 30. 9. 1988. The tenancy was also terminated from 30. 9. 1988. The defendant received the notice sent by the plaintiff on 6. 9. 1988. However, the defendant did not send any reply for this notice. Hence, the plaintiff came forward with this present suit for eviction.

(2.) THE defendant in his written statement submitted that the consent letter from this defendant was obtained under duress, with the help of Vilathikulam Sub Inspector of Police. THE notice issued by the plaintiff dated 27. 8.' '8s is not valid. THE notice is not in accordance with the provisions of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. THE defendant paid an advance of Rs. 1,000 to the plaintiff at the time of inception of the tenancy. THE plaintiff unreasonably refused to renew the lease agreement. THE defendant is paying the rent regularly. THE plaintiff has no right to terminate the tenancy. Since the plaintiff forcibly attempting to evict the tenant, the defendant filed another suit O. S. No. 194 of 1988 against the plaintiff in O. S. No. 262 of 1988 for a permanent injunction restraining him from evicting the tenant unreasonably. It was, therefore, pleaded that the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE fact remains that the appellant herein is the tenant under the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 in respect of the suit premises. According to the respondent the tenant committed default in payment of rent for a period of five months from 1. 5. 1988 onwards amounting to rs. 1,000. According to the appellant he did not commit default in payment of rent as alleged by the respondent herein. THE appellant submitted that at the time of inception of the tenancy, he paid an advance of Rs. 1,000 to the landlord. According to the appellants additional written statement, the tenancy was renewed on 20. 12. 1985. THE appellant submitted that on 20. 12. 1985 a fresh lease agreement was entered into between the respondent and the appellant and according to the said agreement the tenancy commences from 20th of every english calendar month ending with the 19th of the succeeding English calendar month. THE tenant submitted that this agreement was executed in the police station under duress. It was also submitted that two copies were taken and both the copies are with the respondent herein. THErefore, according to the appellant herein, if the rental agreement dated 20. 12. 1985 is produced before the court, that would show that the tenancy commenced from the 20th of every english calendar month. On the other hand, the respondent denied having executed any such agreement dated 20. 12. 1985. THE appellant herein did not produce any evidence to substantiate his version that a fresh lease agreement was executed on 20. 12. 1985. According to him, it was executed in the police station under duress. Nobody from the police station was examined to prove this version.