D. MEERA Vs. V. SAROJA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants before the trial Court, having suffered a decree of ejectment from the suit property let out by the plaintiff, after dismissal of their appeal by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.18 of 2011 dated 10.7.2013, have brought this second appeal.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as follows. The respondent/plaintiff being the owner of the suit property bearing Plot No.8, Door No.9, Second Main Road, Jaya Nagar, Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai, filed the suit for ejectment of the appellants/defendants and further claiming damages for use and occupation amounting to Rs.36,000/- along with future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per day inter-alia on the ground that in the year 2003, the respondent's husband underwent a surgery and a portion of his leg got amputated. Thereafter, he was medically advised not to climb any staircase, hence, on the advice of the doctors, the respondent also shifted her residential premises to other rental places and at the time of filing the suit for ejectment, she claimed to have been residing at No.1, Kaveri Street, Gayathri Nagar, Sembakkam, Chennai. It was also the further claim of the respondent before the trial Court that the suit property measuring an extent of 2600 sq.ft., consisting of ground floor and first floor is situate in Survey No.236/A, Chitlapakkam Village and the ground floor was let out to the second appellant-Society represented by the first appellant. Since the second appellant-Society was engaged in providing service to the persons suffering with contagious disease like TB, AIDS, etc., in contravention of the terms of the lease, the appellants have been providing food and accommodation to the persons suffering from such contagious disease. Therefore, the acts of the second appellant-Society caused nuisance to the neighbours of the suit property. In view of that, the neighbours opposed and lodged a complaint of nuisance. Pursuant thereto, the police also summoned the respondent and enquired thereon. In order to avoid such quarrels with neighbours, the respondent was constrained to file the suit for ejectment of the appellants from the suit property.

(3.) It was also the further claim of the respondent that the first daughter of the respondent, after completing Master's Degree in Veterinary Science, has been running a private clinic at rental premises at Velacherry Main Road, Tambaram. One another daughter, after completing Law Degree, is practising as a Lawyer at an office by paying monthly rent of Rs.1,400/-. Since the landlord of the respondent also had requested her to vacate and surrender vacant possession, it was further averred in the plaint that the suit for ejectment was necessitated. Again it was pleaded that the respondent and her daughters are paying huge amounts towards rent for their residential and office premises. That apart, as per the terms of the lease agreement that was executed for eleven months from 1.1.2008 to 30.11.2008, there is no specific clause for renewal of tenancy after the expiry of lease on 30.11.2008. In view of that, a notice was also issued to the appellants on 30.09.2008 calling upon them to vacate and surrender possession after the expiry of the lease period. On receipt of the said notice, the appellants also issued a reply stating that only in order to extract more rent of Rs.40,000/- per month, the respondent had issued the notice for eviction. Subsequently, the respondent also sent a rejoinder. Under this background, the respondent filed the suit for ejectment of the appellants from the suit property.