R. LAKSHMINARAYANAN Vs. HAJI ABDUL KHADER NAGADA TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the defendant in the original suit filed this second appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 14.07.2003 made in A.S.No.19 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Court, Nagapatinam, confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 27.12.2002 made in O.S.No.44 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nagapatinam.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the defendant in the original suit is referred as appellant and the plaintiff in the original suit is referred as respondent hereafter.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and directed the appellant to deliver the vacant possession after dismantling the superstructure. Briefly the case of the respondent is that the suit property is a wakf property and the husband of the respondent is present Trustee of the wakf property and the respondent is his power agent. The appellant executed a lease agreement on 02.10.1982 in favour of the respondent and accordingly, the respondent is land owner and the appellant is tenant and the tenancy commenced on 02.10.1982 and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.40/- payable on or before 05th of succeeding month. The appellant has also paid a sum of Rs.500/- as advance. According to the respondent, the appellant was in arrears of rent for three months as on 30.04.1985 and hence, O.S.No.245 of 1985 was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment, but the suit was dismissed as notice to quit was not in proper. As against the dismissal of the above said suit, the first appeal in A.S.No.13/89 was filed and it was partly allowed in respect of claim of arrears of rent alone. The respondent had issued proper notice on 19.06.1998, terminating the tenancy with effect from 02.09.1998, but, the appellant sent a reply, containing false averments through his counsel on 30.11.1998. Further, the appellant has sub-leased the suit property to another person and therefore, the appellant is liable to evict from the suit property after dismantling the super-structure, since the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of City Tenants Protection Act and also on the ground of arrears of rent. Hence, the suit.