N KANNAYIRAM Vs. KALLALAGAR DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant in this appeal which arises out of O.S.No.271 of 1975 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property and for rent of Rs.11,200 till 30th April, 1975 and for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.90 from 1st May, 1975 to 3rd May, 1975 and for future mesne profits.

(2.) The plaint schedule property which is a vacant site was taken on lease under Ex.A4 for a period of five years by the first defendant. The lease was to commence from 1st December, 1960. In and by the lease deed, the first defendant was authorised to sublet. Accordingly, he sublet the same to S.V.O.C. Limited, dealers in Petroleum Product. After the expiry of the lease, a fresh lease was exeucted under Ex.B7, dated 1st December, 1966 for a period of five years. The monthly rent was Rs.350. Here again, permission was granted for subletting. The purpose of subletting was to run a petrol bunk. During the lease period, the second defendant Corporation became the sub-tenant. There was rivalry between the first and second defendants to obtain the lease. While the matter was pending before the Religious Endowments Board the plaintiff was directed to evict the defendants. From 1st December, 1971 to 31st August, 1974, the arrears of rent had totalled upto Rs.15,750 out of which Rs.7,350 was paid leaving a balance of Rs.8,400. Notice was issued on 9th January, 1974 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the first defendant to deliver possession. A reply was sent by the 1st defendant. Again another notice dated 6th April, 1975 under Ex.A8 was issued terminating the tenancy ending by 30th April. A reply was received under Ex.A9 setting up paramount title in the Government on 14th April, 1975 stating that inasmuch as the Government have issued B memoranda the plaintiff had no title. The third defendant was impleaded because the rights of the S.V.O.C. which later on became Esso and then merged into Hindustan Petroleum Corporation was a necessary party and the Government was impleaded as the 4th defendant and the suit came to be filed for the abovesaid reliefs.

(3.) In the written statement of the first defendant, it was contended that the lease was true. However, two suits came to be filed by the plaintiff, one against S.V.O.C. and another against the Government. Both the suits were dismissed against which two appeals A.S.No.162/58 and A.S.No.142/58 were preferred. A.S.No.162/58 was allowed but A.S.No.142/58 was dismissed. A second appeal was preferred to this Court and the title of the plaintiff to 12 cents against the State was upheld. Subsequently, a compromise, was entered into, as a result of which, some more portion was leased to the first defendant for five years from 1st December, 1960 under Ex.P4, the actual date of lease being 30th January, 1961. After the expiry of the lease, Ex.B7 came to be entered into. However, inasmuch as this defendant has been visited with B memoranda, the title of the plaintiff is liable to be questioned. Further, the plaintiff was obliged to attorn to the Government. The second defendant filed a written statement to the effect that he was not aware of the notices and reply. As a matter of fact, no notice was ever issued as far as this defendant is concerned. The second defendant, is entitled to the City Tenants Protection Act as the superstructures are worth about Rs.75,000. The third defendant adopted the written statement of the second defendant.