RATHNA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the respondent was served with notice and the name of the respondent has been printed in the cause list, none appears on behalf of the respondent. The defendant in the Original Suit O.S.No.150 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif, Cuddalore, who suffered a decree in the trial court, which was confirmed by the lower appellate court, namely II Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in A.S.No.60 of 2004, has come forward with the present second appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed by Sri Padaleeswarar Devasthanam, Thirupapuliyur represented by its Executive Officer, the respondent herein, for recovery of the suit property belonging to the respondent Devasthanam, which, according to the respondent, had been rented out to the appellant herein/defendant under a registered Rental Deed dated 06.09.1991 for a period of three years from 01.07.1990 to 30.06.1993 on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. It was also the plea of the respondent herein/plaintiff that after the expiry of the said period found in the Rental Deed, the appellant herein/defendant continued as a tenant holding over the suit property and the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Mayiladuthurai fixed the fair rent for the suit property at Rs.1,000/- per month from 01.09.1997 by his order dated 30.09.1997. The further contention of the respondent herein/plaintiff is that the appellant herein/defendant was irregular in payment of rent and he had left an arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.26,200/-, which prompted the respondent herein/plaintiff to issue a notice terminating the tenancy and asking the appellant herein/defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent herein/plaintiff.

(3.) The appellant herein/defendant, in her written statement, admitted that she became a tenant in respect of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-, but disputed the other plaint averments. It was also contended that no notice dated 17.02.2000 as pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff was served on her. Based on the above said pleadings, the appellant/defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.