A ARPUTHASAMY Vs. JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: - The plaintiffs submit that the suit property and its adjacent properties with some old buildings measuring 81384 sq.ft. situated in S.No.1113/2, Ward No.6, Dindigul Town originally belonged to the Church of South India Trust Association. The said property was leased out to one Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Late Pon Srinivasan by the said CSI Trust Association. Later, she had sub -leased the said old buildings and also a portion of the vacant site to various persons. Accordingly, the suit property as vacant site was leased out by her to the defendant who had put up the superstructures on it. The defendant is doing business in the name and style of Selvam Xerox in the suit property. Subsequently, the CSI Trust Association took necessary steps to recover the properties leased out to the said Vijayalakshmi and later, the matter was amicably settled between them. Accordingly, the said CSI Trust Association agreed to sell an extent of 18000 sq.ft from out of 81384 sq.ft. (bounded on the north and west - the property belongs to the CSI Trust Association, on the east - Thiruvalluvar Salai, on the south - Vinayakar temple and spencers compound) to the said Vijayalakshmi and she in turn, agreed to surrender the other portions of the said property which was leased out to her. As per that settlement, the said CSI Trust Association entered into a registered sale agreement with her on 03.07.1992 in respect of the said 18000 sq.ft. The said Vijayalakshmi surrendered the other portions of the properties which were originally leased out to her by the CSI Trust Association in July 1992 and the defendant as well as the other tenants had attorned their respective tenancy agreements with the CSI Trust Associations. In pursuance of that, the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the said Association on 29.07.1992 and as per that agreement, the defendant agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.120/ - per month on or before 5th of every succeeding English calendar month and in default of payment of two months rent, the said lessor was entitled to demand and vacate the defendant without notice etc. The defendant had also agreed not to sub let the suit property or transfer the business in it in part or fully to anyone and also agreed that no document will be created to occupy the suit property. The defendant lastly was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.200/ - per month.

(2.) The plaintiffs further submit that the they had purchased the said property of 18000 sq.ft. from CSI Trust Association with the consent of the said Vijayalakshmi as per the registered sale deed dated 24.02.1995. The plaintiffs as well as the said CSI Trust Association had informed the same to all the tenants. Though the plaintiffs had informed the defendant about their ownership of the suit property, he had not paid the rent amounts to them and they were constrained to send a registered notice to him through their Advocate on 11.09.1995 stating about their ownership. Even though the defendant had received the said notice on 13.09.1995, he had not complied with demand made in it and also not cared to send any reply for the same. The plaintiffs further submit that the defendant had not paid the rent from the month of March 1995 onwards and committed willful default in payment of rent. Moreover, the suit property as well as the adjacent properties, purchased by the plaintiffs are immediately required by them for their own use and occupation in order to construct a new building on it. The plaintiffs have also validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant under a registered notice dated 15.11.1995 with the end of the tenancy month of December 1995. The defendant had received the said notice on 18.11.1995 and sent a reply notice dated 28.12.1995 with false and frivolous allegations. For the subsequent periods after the termination of the tenancy, the defendant is liable to pay the damages for use and occupation from the date of the plaint till the date of recovery of possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, the property purchased by the plaintiffs i.e., 18000 sq.ft. was sub divided as T.S.No.1113/3A and 3B and a new patta No.3545 was given to the plaintiffs on 08.10.1999. The suit property as such is situated in T.S.No.1113/3A (amended as per order in I.A.No.218/2000, dated 23.04.2001)

(3.) The plaintiffs further submit that the defendant contended that the suit property is the Government poromboke land and was assigned to the CSI Church conditionally and so the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs was not a valid one and the plaintiffs would have to prove their title through the Court of law etc. After having admitted the title of the CSI Trust Association in respect of the suit property and after having entered into the lease agreement with it, the defendant is estopped from denying the title of their and said CSI Trust Association or its transferee, the plaintiffs. By such denial of title, the defendant had forfeited the tenancy. The plaintiffs have therefore come forward with the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property and for rent arrears, future mesne profits and for costs. The plaintiffs value for the suit claim for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.4,500/ - and paid Court fees of Rs.339/ - under Sections 43, 22 and 44 of T.N.Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs further submit that the cause of action for this suit arose on 29.07.1992, when the suit property was leased out to the defendant by the CSI Trust Association, on 24.02.1995, when the said Association had sold the suit property and other properties to the plaintiffs, on 11.09.1995, when the plaintiffs had sent a registered notice through their advocate to the defendant on 15.11.1995, when the plaintiffs had sent the termination notice to the defendants, on 18.11.1995, when the defendant received the same, on 31.12.1995 when the tenancy of the defendant was terminated at Dindigul Town, where the suit property is situated within jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiffs have therefore prayed for the following requirements: -