K MOHAMMED YACUB DIED Vs. M VARADARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in OS. No. 2235 of 1971 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Erode, is the Appellant. He died during the pendency of the Second Appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 7 as per order dated 6.1.92 made in CMP. No. 13241 of 1992. THE plaintiff's case briefly stated is as follows:

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for delivery of possession of the suit property and for a mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to remove the superstructure and also for past and future mesne profits. THE suit property bears Door No. 52, Sathy Road, Erode and it belongs to the plaintiff. THE defendant is in occupation of the suit property as a tenant agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- payable on the last day of every English month. THE lease is oral. THE defendant has put up a superstructure at his cost. THE plaintiff filed RCOP. No. 38/69 for evicting the defendant. It was the contention of the defendant that he has taken the vacant site only and so that the Rent Control Act would not apply. So RCOP. No. 38/69 was dismissed on 24.9.70. THE plaintiff filed CMA. No. 48/70 in the sub Court against the judgment made in RCOP. No. 38/69 and he withdrew the same with liberty to move the Civil Court for possession. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession of the vacant site. THE plaintiff issued notice on 12.4.71 to the defendant calling upon him to deliver vacant possession of the suit property on or before 30.4.71 terminating the tenancy. THE defendant sent a reply on 27.7.71. THE plaintiff ceased to accept rent from the defendant since the defendant was no longer a tenant.

(3.) THE defendant filed an additional written statement on 21.6.1973. THE suit property is situated within the Erode Municipal Limits and the Madras City Tenants Protection Act is applicable to this case. THE defendant is entitled to the benefits under the said Act. THE superstructure over the suit property belongs to the defendant. THE present market value of the superstructure is Rs. 10,000/-. THE defendant has made substantial improvements to the site at a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. THE plaintiff is bound to pay the 15. In the result, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are restored and the second appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed as prayed directing the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the suit property within three months from this date. In the value of the building and the cost of improvement before seeking to evict the defendant. THE present suit is not maintainable for want of valid notice under S. 11 of the City Tenants Protection Act. THE plaintiff is bound to give notice granting three months time and offer to pay the value of the superstructure before filing the suit. THE trial court framed the following issues: