Madras High Court
S.Jamunarani vs Saraswathi on 19 April, 2022
SA.No.253/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
SA.No.253/2022 and CMP.No.5131/2022
S.Jamunarani .. Appellant/Appellant/
Defendant
Vs.
C.Chellakutty Gounder (Died)
1.Saraswathi
2.Manickam
3.Nagarajan
4.Jothimani .. Respondents/Respondents/
Plaintiffs
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2021 made in
A.S.No.51 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2020 made
in O.S.No.760 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.B.R.Sankaralingam
For Respondents : Mr.C.R.Prasanan
counsel for Caveator
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 Page of 9
SA.No.253/2022
JUDGMENT
(1) The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.760 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant in
the above second appeal.
(2) The husband of 1st respondent in this appeal filed the suit in
O.S.No.760/2015 for eviction, recovery of arrears of monthly rent
and damages as against the defendant. Since he died during the
pendency of the suit, respondents 1 to 4 herein were impleaded as
plaintiffs 2 to 5 to prosecute the suit.
(3) The Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendant to
handover the vacant possession to the plaintiffs and further directed
the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of decree to date of realization. The
defendant/appellant preferred an appeal, as against the judgment of
the Trial Court decreeing the suit, in A.S.No.51 of 2020 before the
learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 Page of 9
SA.No.253/2022
(4) The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the
concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the above
Second Appeal is preferred by the sole defendant/appellant in the
suit.
(5) The appellant has raised following substantial questions of law in
the Memorandum of Grounds of Second Appeal.
1. Whether Ex.A1 Unregistered Lease Agreement
is a legally admissible document that too when said
document does not stand in the name of any of the
signatory to the same?
2. Whether the Court's below were correct in
placing reliance on an unregistered document Ex.A1
which requires compulsory registration under
Section 17 of the Registration Act?
3. Whether the suit for ejectment itself is
maintainable in the eye of Law when the appellant
being a statutory tenant and only Rent Control Act is
applicable?
4. Whether the alleged notice of termination
Ex.A2 dated 23.03.2015 is valid in Law when Ex.A1
by itself is admissible in Law that too when the said
stamp paper itself is not purchased in the name of
either of the parties to the same.
(6) The suit property is a house site measuring an extent of 16 cents of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 Page of 9
SA.No.253/2022
land and building in S.F.No.396/1H2 of Saravanampatti Village,
Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District. It is the case of the
respondents/plaintiffs that the husband of the 1st respondent is the
absolute owner of the suit property and that he leased out the suit
property to the appellant/defendant by an unregistered lease
agreement dated 12.04.2012. It is stated that the lease period was 11
months from 12.05.2012 to 11.04.2013 and that the monthly rent
payable by the appellant was @ Rs.4,800/- per month. It is admitted
that the appellant is carrying on business in the suit property by
running a four wheeler automobile mechanic shop in the name and
styles of “4 Wheel's Auto Care”. Though the respondents admitted
that the appellant paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards advance and
paid the monthly rent for the period of 11 months from 12.05.2012
to 11.04.2013, the respondents contended further that the appellant
and the 1st respondent's husband executed another unregistered lease
agreement from 01.12.2013 to 31.10.2014 fixing monthly rent
@ Rs.19,200/-. Stating that the subsequent lease agreement was
accepted the respondents contend that the appellant failed to pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 Page of 9
SA.No.253/2022
monthly rent from July 2014 and did not vacate the suit property as
it was promised by her earlier. It is admitted that the
appellant/defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.548 of 2015 against the
respondents/plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the
plaintiffs from interfering with the possession of the defendant
except under due process of law.
(7) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant admitted that the
said suit was not prosecuted as the respondents filed the present suit
for eviction and consequential reliefs. From the pleadings, it is
evident that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship
between the parties and the fact that the appellant has no right as a
tenant to be in possession after the lease has been lawfully
terminated. In the present case, the renewal for the last 11 months as
pleaded by the respondents has been specifically denied and
therefore the lessee is liable to pay damages for use and occupation.
Though the appellant admitted tenancy, it is contended that the
respondents started demanding more rent in spite of the fact that the
appellant had invested a substantial amount for putting up of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 Page of 9
SA.No.253/2022
additional constructions in the suit property.
(8) It is to be noted that the appellant had stated in her written statement
that the plaintiffs forcibly obtained her signature in the lease
agreement wherein the premium was fixed @ Rs.19,200/- per
month. Therefore, except the quantum of rent, the defendant has not
raised any defence to keep her possession in tact. The liability of the
tenant to pay rent only at the previously agreed rate cannot be
accepted on merely because the defendant is in possession of the
property for a large number of years. Even on the admitted facts, the
appellant has to pay the rent which was fixed in the year 2013 @
Rs.19,200/-.
(9) Having regard to the nature of pleadings and evidences let in by
both sides, this Court has no hesitation to dismiss the suit. However,
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant persuaded this Court
to grant at least 6 months time from today so that there will be
substantial relief to the tenant who is doing commercial activities in
the suit property. Though a stand was taken by the appellant
claiming right under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 Page of 9
SA.No.253/2022
it is admitted that lease was commenced after 2012, and the Act will
not be applicable. Hence, the appellant herself had withdrawn the
application filed under Section 9 of the Act. Even though, the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued on
several grounds, this Court is unable to appreciate any of these
contentions as having merit. Therefore, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant suggested a disposal by consent of
parties so that the appellant will get at least 6 months time to vacate
the premises. Accordingly, both learned counsels have mutually
agreed to dispose of this appeal on the following lines.
(10) The appellant shall handover vacant possession of the suit premises
along with superstructure on or before 30th September, 2022. It is
open to the appellant to remove fittings of furnitures or anything
available inside the building that belongs to her. The appellant has
handed over a Demand Draft drawn for a sum of Rs.1,83,544/-
towards arrears of rent @ Rs.4,800/- for the period upto 31.03.2022.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents acknowledged the
receipt of the said Demand Draft for the amount of Rs.1,83,544/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 Page of 9
SA.No.253/2022
The appellant shall pay rent @ Rs.4,800/- per month for the period
from 01.04.2022 till the date she vacates the premises by the end of
September, 2022 @ Rs.4,800/- or earlier without fail before the 10th
of every succeeding month. In case, the appellant fails to comply
with her undertaking before this Court, it is open to the respondents
to proceed against the appellant for contempt of Court. The learned
counsel also undertakes to file an affidavit of undertaking signed by
the appellant on or before 28.04.2022, after marking a copy to the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(11) In view of the above stated terms by consent by parties the second
appeal is dismissed subject to the terms above agreed.
Consequently connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.04.2022
cda
Internet : Yes
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 Page of 9
SA.No.253/2022
cda
To
1.The I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
3.The Section Officer, VR Records,
High Court, Chennai.
SA.No.253/2022
and CMP.No.5131/2022
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 Page of 9
