K.M. SANJEEVI RAJA (DIED) Vs. PUDUPALAYAM SAKARAJAKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Transferred City Tenant Original Petition (T.C.T.O.P.) arises out of O.P. No.139 of 1979, in O.S. No.224 of 1979.

(2.) A careful handling and perusal of the decrepit papers of the present case reveals that the Petition was filed by the Original Petitioner/Tenant - K.M. Sanjeevi Raja, which is being continued and pursued by his Legal Heirs. The property described in the Petition is a vacant site belonging to the Respondent/Landlord. The same was leased to the original First Petitioner, in 1945 for the purposes of putting up Superstructure and installation of Rice, Flour and Oil Mills, and boilers. The deceased First Petitioner had put up Rice, Flour, Oil Mills and Boiler Plants on the premises constructed a Compound wall and erected platforms and a shed in the southern portion of the Suit property. The value of the Superstructure construction is over Rs.2.00lakhs. The original rent for the premises, i.e., the vacant site was Rs.140.00 per annum and it has been periodically enhanced to Rs.960.00 per annum. The rents are being collected every year. It is not a case of monthly tenancy. The business is the only source of livelihood for the deceased First Petitioner and his family. The entire vacant land is absolutely necessary for the deceased First Petitioner for the purpose of rice, flour and oil mills. The existing platform is not sufficient for drying the boiled rice and keeping the bags. The small front portion in the south abutting Tenkasi Road is also necessary and is used as the entrance for loading and unloading.

(3.) The Original Petition was resisted by the Respondent/Landlord by filing a statement of objections on 26/6/1980. As per the objections, the Petitioner has described a larger extent than what is described in the Plaint and therefore, they are not entitled to claim for sale of the property, which is not described in the Plaint. The allegation that the Superstructure is Rs.2.00 lakhs was denied and it was contended that the value of the Superstructure was Rs.5,000.00 only. According to the Respondent, the property was leased out on a Monthly Rental of Rs.20.00 and after the periodical increase, the Petitioner was paying the Rent of Rs.80.00 per month and not Rs.960.00 per year. It is false to allege that the tenancy is only annual and not monthly. The tenancy is only as per the English calendar month. The allegation that the entire property is necessary for running the business is false. The area claimed by the Petitioners was not used by them. The fact that there were disputes, which had arisen between the Respondent and the Petitioners, there was a Suit in O.S. No.146 of 1976 admitted. The Petitioner falsely claimed that the value of the property is Rs.80.00 per cent. The property which is leased out was situated in the Rajapalayam town. There are a number of houses and bungalows in and around the property. The property will fetch more than Rs.600.00 per month as rent. The price of the Suit property is not less than Rs.300.00 per square feet. Since the Petitioners were not in the mind-set of vacating and handing over the possession of the property, the Suit has been filed. However, the Petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the Act and the Petitioners do not have a cause of action to maintain the Petition.