S. SAKTHIVEL Vs. SELLAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.183/1999, on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge -cum -Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, which had arisen out of a decree and judgment in O.S.No.1132/1995, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Karur. The unsuccessful defendant before the first appellate Court is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent alternatively. The plaintiff has prayed for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property and also for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.100/ - per month from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession.

(3.) THE averments in the plaint sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: - The plaint schedule property belonged to the plaintiff as vacant site by virtue of a patta issued in his favour by the Tahsildhar, Karur on 31.12.1973. The plaintiff had constructed a tiled house at a cost of Rs.20,000/ - in or about the year 1974 and was residing therein. The plaintiff has also obtained electric service connection No.71. Since the plaintiff resided in his garden land at Anaippalayam, Velamboondhi Village, Periyar District from the year 1980, he has orally rented out the suit property to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.50/ - in the month of January, 1980. The tenancy is monthly and as per the English Calender month. The defendant has agreed to pay the rent on or before 5th of every succeeding English Calender month and he has been paying the rent till the end of the year 1984. Subsequently, the rent has been enhanced as Rs.75/ - per month from the month of January, 1985 and the defendant was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.75/ - per month till December, 1986 and thereafter, the rent was increased to Rs.100/ - per month. The defendant has been paying the rent at the rate of Rs.100/ - per month till the end of the year 1988. From January, 1989, the defendant has committed default in payment of rent. In the meantime, the defendant had mis -represented the electricity board that he is the owner of the suit property and obtained another electricity service connection in his name for the suit property in the last week of January, 1990. The plaintiff issued notice to the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chinnadharapuram Post, Karur Taluk and the Divisional Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Karur calling upon them to disconnect the service connection given to the suit property in the name of the defendant and a copy was also marked to the defendant. The defendant had received the said notice, but gave a false reply. In the reply notice the defendant said that patta dated 26.10.1976 was issued by the Tahsildar in his name for the suit property and after issuance of the said patta the defendant had put up a house bearing door No.6/119/N -4 and was paying house tax for the suit property. He has further claimed that he has prescribed title to the plaint schedule property. The defendant is only a tenant under the plaintiff. Defendant -s mother Samiyathal @ Pichaiyammal had encroached about 10 years ago in the suit property and put up a thatched shed and as there was no income for her, she wanted to run a bunk -shop in the thatched house. The allegation that taking advantage of the illiteracy of the defendant -s mother, the plaintiff has obtained service connection in his name in respect of the suit property is denied as false. No electricity connection was obtained for the bunk -shop in the name of the defendant. The suit property exclusively belonged to the plaintiff by virtue of the patta issued by the Tahsildar, Karur dated 31.12.1973 and the plaintiff has constructed a tiled house in the suit property at a cost of Rs.20,000/ - in the year 1974. Patta said to have been issued in the name of the defendant relates to some other property and not to the suit property. At the inception of the tenancy the defendant -s mother run a bunk -shop and after sometime the defendant has switched over to tailoring shop and also to a tea shop business. At present, the defendant is running a tailoring shop and a tea shop in the suit property. With a mala fide intention the defendant claims that the suit property belongs to him by virtue of the patta issued in favour of him by squatting on the suit property. Since the plaintiff requires the suit property for his personal occupation, he has issued notice through his lawyer on 21.10.1993, terminating the tenancy in favour of the defendant with the tenancy month ending with March, 1990. Hence, the suit.