RAMALINGA CHETTIAR Vs. SRINIVASA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant herein. THE plaintiff filed O.S. No. 170/78 on the file of District Munsif, Court at Chidambaram, for possession after removal of superstructure in the suit property and for past mesne profits. THE case of the plaintiff is as under:

(2.) THE suit property belongs to the plaintiff. THE defendant became a tenant of the property under the plaintiff on 30.4.1996 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-. THE rent is payable on or before the 30th of every month. If there is any default in payment of rent before the 30th of every month, the defendant is bound to pay Rs. 5/-. THE tenancy was for a period of three years. THE rental agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 30.4.1966 incorporating the abovesaid clause. Even after the expiry of the lease period, the tenant has been in possession of the suit property as a tenant holding over. He was irregular in payment of rent. After May 1978, a sum of Rs. 321/- is due and payable by the defendant towards the arrears of rent. THE plaintiff sent a notice on 19.10.1977 to the defendant terminating the tenancy with the expiry of 29.11.1977 and demanding him to surrender the possession of the property on 30.11.1977 with arrears of rent of Rs. 281/- due upto 30.9.1977. THE tenant sent a reply notice on 26.10.977, refusing to vacate. In the reply notice, the tenant alleged that the rent is only Rs. 3/- per month and not Rs. 4/- per month as stated by the plaintiff. On 12.12.1978 the defendant sent again a notice to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to specify a bank to deposit the rent. THEreafter, the plaintiff sent another notice dated 24.10.1978 terminating the tenancy with effect from 31.3.1978, and also requiring the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the suit land. THE defendant is not entitled to the rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act or under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE plaintiff examined himself as PW. 1 THE defendant examined himself as DW. 1. One Muthukumaraswamy Pillai was examined as DW. 2. THE plaintiff filed 9 documents. THE defendant filed 24 document.