MANDHIRIKODI Vs. E. BALARAMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arose out of two cross suits namely, O.S.No.1061 of 2004 and 319 of 2011. While O.S.No.1061 of 2004 was filed by Elumalai, father of the respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking ejectment of the appellant from the suit property, for damages, for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2000.00 per month. The suit in O.S.No. 319 of 2011 was filed by the appellant against the respondents herein seeking an injunction restraining the defendant from evicting him except under due process of law.

(2.) Since the original plaintiff in O.S.No.1061 of 2004 died, the respondents herein were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the said suit as his legal representatives. The claim of the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 1061 of 2004 is as follows:-

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant. While admitting the tenancy, the defendant claim that he has been paying rent regularly. It is also claimed that the notice to quit has not been validly issued. It is also stated that since the plaintiff attempted forcible eviction, he was forced to file a suit in O.S.No.474 of 2002 seeking permanent injunction and the same was pending. On the above allegations, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. Since the area in which the suit property is situate became a part of Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation during the pendency of the suit, an additional written statement was filed by the defendant claiming that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for ejectment and the suit is not maintainable, since the provisions of Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as they were in existence would apply to the tenancy on hand.