Madras High Court
A.Jayaraman vs M.R.Rani on 9 February, 2022
S.A.No 919 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
S.A. No.919 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.17431 of 2021
A.Jayaraman .. Appellant
Versus
1. M.R.Rani
2. M.R.Manju Dharshini .. Respondents
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 passed in A.S. No.5 of
2019 on the file of the Additional District Judge IV Court, Ponneri, confirming
the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2017 in O.S. No.72 of 2010 on the file of
the Subordinate Judge's Court – Ponneri and thereby allow this appeal as costs.
For Appellant : Mr. P.Rajendra Kumar
For Respondents : Mr. K.Jaganathan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
S.A.No 919 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The defendant in the suit in O.S. No.72 of 2010 before the Sub Court,
Ponneri, is the appellant in the appeal. The respondents in the appeal are the
legal heirs of the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S. No.72 of 2020 before the Sub
Court, Ponneri, for ejectment of the appellant from the suit property.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property by virtue
of a registered sale deed dated 15.09.2003. It is the further case of the plaintiff
that he put up a new construction on the suit property and the said property is
also assessed to property tax. According to the plaintiff the defendant / appellant
approached the plaintiff to let out the building for lease on a monthly rent of
Rs.20,000/- and that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of lease dated
31.03.2004. It is further stated that the defendant has filed a suit in O.S. No.241
of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ponneri, restraining the plaintiff
from interfering with his possession. It is stated that in the said suit, the
defendant had admitted that he is a tenant under the plaintiff. It is stated further
that the said suit was later withdrawn. Though the plaintiff admit that another
suit was filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.44 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court,
Ponneri, by treating the defendant as a trespasser, it appears it was later
withdrawn. The present suit is to eject the defendant who is the tenant in respect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No 919 of 2021
of the suit property and for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards arrears of
rent. The further prayer in the suit is for damages for unlawful use and
occupation of the premises after the termination of lease and to direct the
defendant to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. It is stated that by notice dated
26.05.2007, the tenancy was terminated with effect from 31.07.2007. The suit
was resisted by defendant denying the averments in the plaint. Though every
allegations in the plaint with regard to tenancy is denied by the defendant in the
written statement, has sent a reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff earlier
admitting tenancy. It is also contended by the defendant that the monthly rent
was only Rs.10,000/- and not Rs.20,000/- as demanded by the plaintiff. Apart
from stating that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as rental
advance, it is contended that notice for termination of tenancy is not valid as the
same is not in accordance with law.
3. A reply statement was also filed by the plaintiff inter alia denying the
averments made in the written statement. After full fledged trial, the trial Court
decreed the suit partly by granting a decree for ejectment apart from giving
liberty to initiate separate proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. for
recovery of damages for unlawful use and occupation of the suit property from
01.08.2007, till delivery of possession. In respect of prayer of arrears of rent, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No 919 of 2021
suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiff has not proved his claim that the
monthly rent was at Rs.20,000/- and that the rent payable by tenant was only
Rs.10,000/- per month.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the defendant preferred an
appeal in A.S. No.5 of 2019 before the IV Additional District Court, Ponneri.
The appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed by the lower appellate
Court by confirming the judgment and decree of trial Court in O.S. No.72 of
2010. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below, the
above Second Appeal is preferred by the defendant in the suit.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the
trial Court and the lower Appellate Court are vitiated as the Courts below have
failed to consider that the tenancy as pleaded by the defendant by paying
monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- is not terminated. Merely because the rent mentioned
in the notice of termination is not true, the appellants cannot contend that notice
of termination is improper. Learned counsel further submitted that the contract of
tenancy continues as the termination by notice is not properly done. Learned
counsel further submitted that unless the contract of tenancy is for a specific
period, the tenancy cannot be put to an end by simply issuing notice. None of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No 919 of 2021
points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant can be appreciated in view
of the admitted facts, the legal position and the principles established in law.
6. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and the
defendant has taken the property on lease from the plaintiff. Even though there is
a dispute with regard to quantum of rent, that does not disable the plaintiff from
ejecting the defendant after termination of lease. The lower Appellate Court has
referred to Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and the admitted facts to hold
that notice of termination had been properly issued by the plaintiff and that
tenancy had been terminated in the manner known to law. Though the Court
below had accepted that the plaintiff has not proved that the actual rent was
Rs.20,000/-, held that the tenancy was on monthly basis and the rent payable
was Rs.10,000/- per month. Having regard to the adequacy and validity of notice
issued by the plaintiff for termination of tenancy, the Courts below has given a
categorical finding that the notice is not vitiated for any infirmity and that
tenancy has been validly terminated. It is admitted that notice of termination was
issued on 26.05.2007, terminating the tenancy of defendant with effect from
31.07.2007. The suit was filed in 13.09.2007. Hence the notice is in accordance
with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No 919 of 2021
7. In a suit for ejectment, this Court is unable to find any defense in the
written statement filed by the appellant. It has been repeatedly held that a notice
to quit must be construed not with the desire to find fault with it but must be
construed by applying common sense. As it has been held by this Court, notice
under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act should be construed broadly and it
should not be defeated by inaccuracies either in the description of the premises or
the date of expiry of the notice. Though the expression of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bhagabandas Agarwalla Vs. Bhagwandas Kanu and others
reported in AIR 1977 SC 1120 was not followed subsequently by this Court in a
few judgments, the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
after amendment enables the landlord to overcome the defects or the irregularity
in the notice. In this case, the suit has been instituted after the expiry of the
period mentioned in Section 106(1) of Transfer of Property Act.
8. As it has been found by the Courts below, this Court is unable to find
any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding
the valid termination of tenancy. The defendant, having admitted the tenancy, has
filed a written statement with several contentions which are neither warranted nor
relevant. For the only ground raised by the defendant regarding validity of notice
of termination, both Courts have concurrently held that notice for ejectment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No 919 of 2021
issued by the plaintiff is complying with the mandatory requirement of Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act and there is no irregularity in it. After
decreeing the suit by the trial Court on the admission of the plaintiff regarding
tenancy and the terms of lease the matter had been unnecessarily dragged on up
to this Court. The Court below have given findings on the basis of pleadings
and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The findings of the Court
below are well founded. Absolutely, there is no illegality or irregularity in the
judgment and decree of the Courts below.
9. This Court is unable to find any substantial question of law warranting
interference of this Court. As a result, this Second Appeal is dismissed with
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.02.2022
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
bkn
To
1. The IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri.
2. The Subordinate Judge, Ponneri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No 919 of 2021
S.S.SUNDAR. J.,
bkn
S.A. No. 919 of 2021
09.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
