P P SUBBA RAJA Vs. E S GURUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 752 of 1973, District Munsif's Court, Koilpatty (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') is the appellant in the second appeal as well as the appeal against order and the petitioner in the civil revision petition. The circumstances giving rise to these proceedings are briefly as follows : - The respondent is the owner of the suit property a vacant site measuring 90 cents comprised in Survey Nos. 268/1-A and 268/ 2-A, out of a total extent of 2 acres and 20 cents, in Sankarankoil. That vacant site was leased out by the respondent herein in favour of one Vargese under a registered lease deed dated 1-5-1968 for a term of 10 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 67.50 ps. for the purpose of running a saw mill. The lessee Vargese was unable to carry on the saw mill business in the land leased out to him; but handed over the leased property to the tenant without the consent of the respondent, Later, the tenant and the respondent agreed to allow the tenant to be the lessee of the suit property on the same terms and conditions as in the registered lease deed entered into between Vargese and the respondent herein. The tenant also agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions in the registered lease deed dt. 1-5-1968. According to the terms of the lease deed, the tenant could run only a saw mill and for that purpose, temporary structures could also be put up, but on the expiration of the period of lease, the tenant should vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent. Contrary to the lease arrangement, the tenant, without the consent of the respondent and fabricating certain documents, submitted a plan to the Sankarankoil Municipality for securing its approval for the construction of permanent structures for running a power loom factory in the suit property. Objections were sent by the respondent to the Municipality; but during the pendency of the enquiry, the tenant put up permanent structures, contrary to the terms of the lease and without securing the approval of the Municipality, but with its active connivance. Since the tenant had raised permanent structures contrary to the terms of the lease and has also used the suit property for a purpose other than that for which it had been originally leased out, the respondent terminated the lease by a notice dt. 14-5-1973 and sought recovery of possession of the suit property from the tenant. The respondent also stated that if the Court should hold that the tenant is entitled to continue in possession of the suit property as a lessee till the expiry of the period of 10 years mentioned in the lease deed dt. 1-5-1968, then, the tenant should be prevented by an order of injunction from putting the suit property to any use other than that for which it was leased out.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the tenant, while admitting the title of the respondent to the suit property and the fact of his having become a lessee subsequent to Vargese, he contended that as Vargese could not fulfil the terms and conditions of the lease, he, with the consent of the respondent herein, transferred the lease to the tenant and he was also recognised as the lessee of the suit property and allowed to remain there by the respondent by a fresh contract in January, 1969. The lease amount, according to the tenant, was Rs. 64/- per mensem, and that ever since then, the tenant has been running his business in the suit property. The tenant, being desirous of starting a new business, viz., a power-loom factory, approached the respondent for his consent and the respondent gave his consent for the same, on the strength of which, the tenant applied to Sankarankoil Municipality for permission to construct buildings and for instalation of machinery therein for running a power-loom factory in the suit property. The tenant also put forth the case that the respondent gave two consent letters, one dt. 31-7-1972 to the Municipality and the other dt. 29-3-1973 to the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board. Concealing the above, the respondent had characterised these consent letters as fabrication. The further case of the tenant was that Sankarankoil Municipality enquired into the matter through its Building Inspector and on his recommendation that permission may be granted subject to the approval of the Town Planning Committee of the Municipality, the objections raised by the respondent to the grant of permission or licence in favour of the tenant were rejected, and by a resolution dt. 31-3-1973, Sankarankoil Municipality resolved to grant permission to the tenant to install machinery and to run a power-loom factory in the suit property. Pursuant to this, the tenant claimed that he had put up buildings and also installed power-loom machinery investing a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and, therefore, the tenant is entitled to run the power-loom factory, which cannot be objected to by the respondent. The tenant further claimed that he had sent a reply notice to the notice of the respondent terminating the lease. An objection that the correct court-fee is not paid and the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, was also taken. Besides, the tenant contended that he had filed an application under S.9(1)(a)(i) of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act and, therefore, the respondent is barred from filing the suit. Consistent with the stand so taken, the tenant filed I.A. No. 64 of 1974 on 16-1-1974 claiming benefits under the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(3.) It is now necessary to refer to the institution of another suit in O.S. No. 229 of 1973 by the respondent herein against Sankarankoil Municipality as well as the tenant, praying for a declaration that the approval of the plan of the tenant by the Municipality for constructing the buildings and for erecting the power-loom factory is mala fide and not binding on the respondent and for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining Sankarankoil Municipality from issuing further licence, such as for installation of machinery and running the industry. In the written statement filed by Sankarankoil Municipality, it raised the plea that the respondent had consented and that this was considered by the Council and thereafter permission was granted to the tenant to put up the buildings to run a power-loom factory, though a licence for running the power-loom factory, as such, had not yet been applied for. The tenant also supported the stand taken by the Municipality that the licence for putting up a building and for erecting the power-loom factory was granted by the Municipality only after making necessary enquiries and observing all the formalities under the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act and that he had not yet applied for a licence to run the power-loom factory. Thus, the Municipality as well as the tenant prayed for the dismissal of the suit instituted by the respondent in O.S. No. 229 of 1973.