S PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. K M GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in the suit, who lost in both the Courts below, is the appellant herein. The suit filed by Sri Chinni Subbiah Chetty Charities represented by trustees viz., respondents 1 to 3 herein, is for eviction and hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The said suit has been decreed by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee and it has been confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, the first defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs as seen from the plaint is that, the defendants are the tenants of the property belonging to the plaintiffs in respect of Shop No.4, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Villivakkam on a monthly rent of Rs.15/- The plaintiff being a Hindu Religious and Charitable Trust is exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act and therefore, they are entitled to evict the tenants/defendants by instituting the civil suit. It is stated that the defendants were irregular in payment of rent and the defendants took indulgence shown by the plaintiffs, began to effect certain structural alterations to the building let out under the pretext that a portion under their occupation became dilapidated. When the plaintiffs took action, the defendants promised to pay the arrears of rent. The defendants failed to pay the rent and one of the trustees also passed away, the defendants continued to commit default in payment of rent. The plaintiffs issued Notice to the defendants on 7.1.1981 and there was no reply to the said notice. Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for ejectment and also for arrears of rent and damages.

(3.) The first appellant and 4th respondent in the above appeal have filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. According to them, their paternal uncle one Poongavanam was occupying the property and running a tea shop. It is stated that after the death of the said Poongavanam , they are in occupation of the property and the first appellant is residing in the western half portion and the 4th respondent herein is doing his cycle shop business in the eastern side half portion. Their case is that they are in possession of the suit property from the year 1970 though the plaintiffs claim that they have purchased the same. The suit has been filed with mala fide intention to evict them. There are certain other contentions raised in the written statement and it is not necessary to notice them since they have been rightly rejected by the trial Court and also by the lower first appellate Court.