M.PONNUSAMY Vs. G.VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.415 of 2009 on the file of Subordinate Court, Perundurai having suffered a decree for recovery of possession concurrently at the hands of the Courts below has come up with this second appeal.

(2.) The suit was laid by the plaintiff claiming that the suit property was alloted to her and she was carrying coir business in the name and style of "D.B.Fibering". She could not continue the business due to lack of cooperation from her son and the business suffered loss. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, she had allowed the defendant who is her son in law, to run the business and to pay the bank dues also. The alleged attempt made by the defendant to remove the machinery from the mill resulted in a Police complaint being lodged against the defendant. The defendant also filed a suit in O.S.No.409 of 2005 seeking an injunction, based on a lease deed dated 18.01.2002 said to have been executed by the plaintiff contending that the lease is for the period of 5 years and the plaintiff attempted to dispossess him without following due course of law and an exparte decree came to be passed in the suit. Claiming that the possession of the defendant is illegal, the plaintiff has also issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy, the said notice was acknowledged by the defendant on 24.11.2008. He neither chose to comply with the notice nor he sent a reply. Therefore, the plaintiff would seek a decree for delivery of possession and for injunction restraining him from inducting any person into the suit property as a sub-tenant.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that he is in possession of the lessee under the lease deed 18.01.2002 for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-, he has also paid an advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs. He would contend that he had paid the monthly rent regularly. He denied the claim of the plaintiff that he was put in possession as a care taker and not as tenant. A new plea was taken at the time of trial, claiming that the defendant is a tenant carrying on a manufacturing process in the suit property, hence, 6 months time notice is necessary to terminate the lease as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.