H.A. KARIM SAIT Vs. MYATH BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in the three appeals before him. The defendant in the trial Court was a tenant of the residential back portion in premises No. 3, Gopathi Narayanswami Chetty Road, T. Nagar, consisting of 6 rooms, verandah and a hall on a monthly rent of Rs. 225/ - per mensem. Alleging that he had defaulted in payment of rent and had sub -let the premises without the consent of the landlord, proceedings under the House Rent Control Act were taken against him. The defendant remained ex parte and eviction was ordered. The plaintiffs took possession on 31st October, 1968, and three suits were filed for recovery of the rent from 1st April, 1967 to 31st October, 1968. The total amount claimed is Rs. 2,025/ -.

(2.) THE defence was that the defendant had vacated the portion in his occupation on 1st March, 1966, that he had sent a notice to that effect on 25th March, 1966, and that he was not liable to pay any rent subsequent to 1st March 1966. There are certain other allegation which are not material for our present purpose.

(3.) THE plaintiffs appealed to the principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Before him it was contended that the trial Court had not paid any attention to Exhibit A -1 which is the certified copy of the notice dated 24th June, 1966, issued by the defendant to his sisters, who were the sub -tenants and that Exhibit A -1, would amount to an admission on the part of the defendant that he continued to be the tenant of the premises even subsequent to March, 1966. The sub -tenants had sent replies denying that they were the tenants of the defendant and claiming title to the property in their own rights. There were also some criminal proceedings between the defendant and his sisters and their husbands. Taking into account all these contentions and the circumstances, the learned Principal Judge held that the defendant's case that he surrendered tenancy on 1st March, 1965 was true and more case that he surrendered tenancy on 1st March, 1965 was true and more probable than the case of the plaintiffs and that once he had surrendered the tenancy his liability to pay rent ceased. In his view the effect of the main tenant surrendering possession was to bring into existence direct relationship between the landlord and the sub -tenant and the landlord would have to recover amounts due to him for the period for which he was kept out of possession by the sub -tenants as damages for use and occupation. He, therefore, dismissed the appeals.