V. RAMALINGAM Vs. S.C.S. PALANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the second appeal which has been preferred by the defendant are as under:

(2.) Vacant site lying within Salem Town limits was leased out in favour of the defendant in 1959 under an oral agreement for the purpose of the lessee's motor workshop. The original period of lease expired on 31st December, 1963, and thereafter, the defendant is holding over. Inspite of the plaintiff's protests, the defendant has put up the superstructures in order that he could permanently squat on the property. On 4th May, 1970, the plaintiff sent a notice to the appellant herein by which he terminated the monthly lease and requested the tenant to surrender possession. In defence it was contended that the lease is not terminable as long as the defendant was paying rent and that was the basic term at the commencement of lease. During the various constructions, the plaintiff stood by. The defendant is entitled to purchase the suit site under the provisions of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The lease was one for manufacturing purpose and therefore, there has not been proper notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In any event the tenant is entitled to the value of improvements before possession could be ordered.

(3.) The learned Additional District Munsif of Salem on an elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the defendant was not entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants' Projection Act and that there has been a proper notice of termination of tenancy and consequently, decreed the suit. Thereupon A.S. No. 23 of 1973 was preferred to the learned Subordinate Judge Salem who also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, however, subject to the condition that the defendant will hand over possession of the suit property with such improvements for which the defendant would be paid compensation before effecting delivery. It was also said that the defendant would be at liberty to remove such fixtures and superstructures as would be declared as not amounting to improvements. It is against this concurrent judgments, this second appeal has been preferred.