MINOR MEENAKSHISUNDARAM AND ANR. Vs. PAUL ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants. They are the owners of a site given in the plaint schedule. They purchased the site on 5th May, 1966 by means of a registered sale deed. The defendant had taken the site from the previous owners on ground rent and had put up a shed for his automobile workshop. The defendant orally attorned to the plaintiffs and continued as their tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. He had agreed to pay the rent for each month on or before the last day of the month. However, the defendant defaulted to pay the rent from May, 1966 to November, 1966. The plaintiffs were, therefore, obliged to file a suit against me defendant for the recovery of the arrears upto November, 1967 in O.S. No. 43 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin. A decree was passed against the defendant. The defendant again defaulted to pay the rent due from December, 1967 to November, 1969 amounting to Rs. 720. As the defendant had been defaulting to pay the rent for the site, a registered notice was sent to him on 28th March, 1969 demanding the arrears of rent also asking him to vacate the premises on 30th April, 1969 and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs on 1st May, 1969. The said notice intimating the plaintiffs' intention to terminate the tenancy was received by he defendant on 3rd April, 1969. The defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. Therefore, the plaintiff came forward with a suit which has given rise to the second appeal to evict the defendant and for recovery of possession and arrears of rent.

(2.) IN the written statement the defendant contended that proceedings could be taken only under the Rent Control Act, that the rent covered by the decree in O.S. No. 43 of 1968 had also been, paid and that the plaintiffs had no right to demand future rent, as they had agreed to adjust the balance due to the defendant under the mortgage money reserved with the plaintiffs in their sale deed. According to the defendant, there was no arrear nor was there any wilful default. He disputed the receipt of the notice dated 3rd April, 1969 and contended also that the said notice was not a proper and valid one. He, therefore, contested the plaintiffs' claim for decree for future rent and also for eviction.

(3.) IN the present ,second appeal the learned Counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) submitted that this is not a case to which Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act would have any application and that the Court below was wrong in granting the relief based on that provision to the defendant -respondent. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in the present appeal is as to whether the provisions of Section 114 applied to the facts herein.