V VIJAYAKANTH Vs. N VEERARAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2017 made in A.S.No.41 of 2016 on the file of Sub Court, Tambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2015 made in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.

(2.) The appellant is defendant and respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur. The respondent filed the above suit for ejectment of appellant from the suit schedule property occupied by him and for vacate and hand over the vacant possession and to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 16,400/- to the respondent. According to the respondent, he is absolute owner of the vacant land measuring 1800 sq.ft., which includes suit property. The respondent let out the vacant site measuring 100 sq.ft. to the appellant with permission to put up shed on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. A rental agreement for a period of 11 months was entered into between the appellant and respondent. The appellant in contravention of rental agreement instead of putting up one shed, has put up two sheds by encroaching the vacant site belonging to the respondent. The appellant also did not pay monthly rent as agreed upon. The respondent issued notice to the appellant to vacate and deliver vacant possession to the respondent. The appellant agreed to vacate and deliver vacant possession to the respondent on 31.08.2008. The respondent issued notice dated 14.09.2009 through his advocate. The appellant failed to deliver vacant possession to the respondent and respondent filed suit on the above facts stating that the appellant lost jural relationship after expiry of lease period.

(3.) The appellant filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the affidavit. The appellant contended that the respondent is not owner of the suit property. The respondent and one Murugan informed the appellant that they are owners of the property in S.No.61/5 and received a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as advance and entered into rental agreement. The appellant after verifying the records found that the property in S.No.61/5 is only kuttai poramboke. The appellant is running a cycle shop in S.No.60. The appellant is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for the relief prayed for in the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit.