Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1939 (MAD)

Sakunthala Ammal v. Shri Chandrasekara Achari

2007-06-27

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2007
Judgment :- Challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of Small Causes Court, Chennai made in NTA No.5 of 1999, the defendant/revision petitioner has brought forth this revision petition. 2.The respondent Shri Chandrasekara Achari Estate, represented by its Executive Officer, has filed original suit on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai, seeking ejectment of the revision petitioner that she was the tenant in respect of the premises belonged to the trust, which was subsequently merged with Angala Parameswari and Kasi Viswanatha Swami Temple; that she was paying rental; that there was rental balance for 18 months at the rate of Rs.65/-; that a notice was issued on 18. 1994 calling upon her to vacate and hand over the possession on or before 30.09.1994, but not done so and hence, the suit. It was resisted by the defendant/revision petitioner, stating that it is true, rental rate was Rs.65/-and she has been making payment without any default; that since she was not doing well, she could not pay; that further she has paid the total rental balance in July, 1997 and there was no rental balance at all; that the tenancy was not terminated properly as contemplated in law and under these circumstances, the suit must be dismissed. On trial, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved, the defendant therein filed civil revision petition before this court. There was permission to file NTA before the court of Small Causes and the CRP was dismissed. Accordingly, NTA No.5 of 1999 was filed. On enquiry by the Division Bench of Small Causes Court, Chennai, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved the defendant has brought forth this civil revision petition before this court. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also looked into the materials available. While doing so, the court is of the considered opinion that this civil revision petition requires an order of dismissal. It was a suit for recovery of possession stating that the petitioner herein was the tenant and there was default in making payment and the tenancy was terminated and she was liable to be evicted. The only defence that was raised was that there was no rental arrears and apart from that, the tenancy was not terminated properly in accordance with law. When the trial was on, the defendant/revision petitioner came with a new plea denying the title of the owner. The only defence that was raised was that there was no rental arrears and apart from that, the tenancy was not terminated properly in accordance with law. When the trial was on, the defendant/revision petitioner came with a new plea denying the title of the owner. It was rightly rejected by both the court below. Having recognised the respondent as the owner of the property and there was default in making payment of rental all along and when there was default, she made a lump sum payment, now it would be too late for the revision petitioner to deny the title of the landlord, since she was estopped from doing so. The other plea that the tenancy was not terminated properly in accordance with law was also rightly rejected. Ex.A.1 notice when looked into, it would be quite clear that the notice was issued on 18. 1994, calling upon her to vacate and hand over possession at the end of September, 1994 and the contents found in the notice are found to be correct. It was also recorded so by both the courts below. Under these circumstances, this court is unable to notice any merit in this civil revision petition. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.