SANTHA Vs. ANJALI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. She is represented by her husband Jegadeesan, who holds a Power of Attorney and he appears as a party -in -person. The suit was filed for ejectment on the premise that the respondent/defendant was a lessee in respect of a vacant site over which he had put up a hut and that the appellant/plaintiff, having purchased the property, became entitled to attornment of tenancy. It was also contended by the appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court that the respondent, who initially agreed to pay rent to the appellant/plaintiff, failed to keep the promise and hence, the appellant/plaintiff was constrained to file the suit after issuing a notice terminating the tenancy.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant contending that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant at any point of time; that even between the persons from whom the appellant/plaintiff is said to have purchased the property and the respondent/defendant, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and that at no point of time, either the plaintiff or the vendor of the plaintiff was in receipt of the ground rent for the suit property.

(3.) AT the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge, on an appreciation of evidence, rendered a finding that the appellant herein/plaintiff was not able to substantiate her case that there was a jural relationship of landlord and tenant either between herself and the respondent/defendant or between her vendor and the respondent/defendant at any point of time.