RAJESWARI Vs. DHANAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition against the reversing judgment dated 4.9.1992 in C.M.A.No.29 of 1992 on the file of the 2nd Additional City Civil Court, Madras, by the respondent/ plaintiff, whereby the lower appellate court has dismissed I.A.No.12454 of 1981 filed by the petitioner herein in the. trial court in O.S.No.4059 of 1979 for purchase of the suit land under Sec.9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) THE said suit O.S.No.4059 of 1979 is by the respondent for ejectment of the petitioner from the suit land of an extent of 3,086 sq.ft., claiming that one 50" x 141/2" land is in the abovesaid 3,086 sq.ft., land was leased out to the petitioner under Ex.A-1 agreement dated 13.6.1975, but the petitioner had trespassed into the other remaining portion of the said suit property. In the said suit, the petitioner filed written statement, inter alia, claiming that the entire 3,086 sq.ft., was leased out along with the shed thereon and that the signature of the petitioner was obtained in Ex.A-1 only on misrepresentation or without letting her know about the contents of the said agreement.

(3.) NOW, even though in the written statement, filed by the petitioner in the abovesaid O.S.No.4059 of 1979, which was originally filed in 1979, the petitioner pleaded that the lease was land and shed thereon, in the affidavit in support of I.A.No. 12454 of 1981, which was filed in 1981, the petitioner took a different stand pleading that the lease was only of the abovesaid suit land and that pursuant to the permission given by the landlord the superstructure was put up by her. (No doubt, it appears that an amended written statement was filed, that too in 1979 itself, but that there too, in the amended portion though it is stated that the tenant was entitled to purchase the land, the original plea that the lease is of land and superstructure thereon, has not been in any way changed). Likewise, in the counter to the said application also, the respondent/ plaintiff took a stand different from what was taken in the plaint, contending that the lease was for land and superstructure thereon. It must also be noted that prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff, in his suit notice Ex.B-2, dated 30.1.1979 and subsequent rejoinder Ex.B-4 dated, 12.2.1979 also maintained the plea that the lease was only of land. Likewise, prior to the suit, in Ex.B-3, dated 5.2.1979, the reply to the suit notice and the reply to the rejoinder Ex.A-137, dated 15.2.1979, both by the tenant, the plea was that the lease was of land and shed thereon.