LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-128

G. KUPPUSAMY Vs. E. KANAGAMMAL

Decided On July 11, 2019
G. KUPPUSAMY Appellant
V/S
E. Kanagammal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the IVth Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.9819 of 2013 in O.S.No.6380 of 2012.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.6380 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned IVth Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. The suit was filed by the first respondent for a direction to direct the petitioner/defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the first respondent/plaintiff. The first respondent/plaintiff has also sought for a direction to direct the petitioner/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.20,770/- as damages for the use and occupation of the suit schedule property for the months from January 2010 to July 2012 and has also sought for costs for said suit. After the receipt of the suit summons in O.S.No.6380 of 2012, the petitioner who is the defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.9819 of 2013 in O.S.No.6380 of 2012 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by law, since the first respondent/plaintiff has not complied with the statutory requirements as prescribed under Section 11 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

(3.) As seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.9819 of 2013, the case of the petitioner/defendant is that the first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit without issuing proper notice as contemplated under Section 11 of the above referred Act. A pre suit notice dated 10.04.2012 issued by the respondent/plaintiff was not intimated to the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai and the said notice did not give any offer regarding the payment of compensation to the petitioner/defendant for the superstructure existing over the land which was put up by him. Further it is the case of the petitioner that the suit has been filed prematurely without waiting for the mandatory statutory period of three months as contemplated under Section 11 of the above referred Act.