VASUDEVA PILLAI TRUST MADRAS Vs. THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in ejectment suit No.40 of 1974 on the file of the II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras is the petitioner herein and the defendant is the respondent. PLAINTIFF filed the suit as owner of I ground and 28 sq.ft. in R.S.No. 1523/4, at Rathnasabapathi Pillai St., Madras 7,and that a superstructure now exists thereon bearing door No. 10 Rathnasabapathi Pillai Street. PLAINTIFF leased out the plot of land originally to one Rajamanickammal on a monthly rent of Rs.3.25 and she left behind huge arrears and expired 27 years ago intestate, and that in September 1970, on plaintiff being told that defendant is claiming to be the lessee of the property and collecting ground rent from sub-tenants, a notice was sent on 15.9.1970 calling upon him to prove that he is the successor-in-interest of Rajamanickammal. He replied through his Counsel on 26.9.1970, stating that he is her son and may be treated as a lessee under the plaintiff and undertook to pay the arrears of rent for three years, but failed to do so, and therefore, under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, a notice was issued on 7.10.1970. This was replied on 26.11.1970, by defendant promising to pay the arrears of rent, but committed default. Again, another notice was sent and reply was received and that having received only a sum of Rs.117, for the balance of the amount, a separate suit is being filed for recovery of arrears. Hence the suit has been laid for evicting the defendant. The suit was filed on 15.4.1974, by the plaintiff called Vasudeva Pillai Trust represented by its Honorary Secretary and that was recognised in Appln. No.241 of 1982 in C.S. No.246 of 1930 by order dated 22.4.1982 by the High Court. On filing the suit on 15.4.1974, defendant filed M.P.No.2747 of 1947 invoking Sec.9 of Tamil Nadu Act III of 1922, stating that originally the suit property had been leased to his grand-father Appavoo Chetti, who had settled the property in favour of his mother, Rajamanickammal, and after her death, as the only son, he had become entitled to the lease-hold rights and that he has applied for the purchase of the suit land.

(2.) THE said petition was opposed and after the Commissioner having been appointed to ascertain the value of the property, on 4.8.1976 it was ordered that the extent involved was 2,810 sq.ft. and that the market value was Rs.16,000 per ground, and therefore, the defendant was directed to pay with interest a sum of Rs.18,733 towards the value of the land at Rs.624.43 every month In 30 equal monthly instalments commencing from 1.11.1976.

(3.) M.P.No.1342 of 1984 was filed by the plaintiff under Secs.3 and 4 of the Act for the appointment of a Commissioner to fix the value of the super sturcture, so that it could get possession of the property in the ejectment suit and pay the value of the supersturcture to the tenant. The Court below held as follows-