Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4900 (MAD)

Palanichidamparam v. S. Prema Selvam

2012-12-04

G.Rajasuria

body2012
JUDGMENT This Second Appeal has been focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2010 made in A.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Devakottai confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Munsif Court at Karaikudi, dated 16.11.2009, made in O.S.No.77 of 2008. 2. A resume of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the Second Appeal would run thus: The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. The appellant in the Second Appeal, happened to be the plaintiff, filed the suit for the following reliefs, viz. A) Directing the defendant to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the demised premises to the plaintiff; B) Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,400/- towards the rental arrears for the period from 01.03.2008 to 29.04.2008 the date on which the tenancy stands terminated with interest at 6% p.a., till date of payment; C) Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,200/- towards past damages for use and occupation from 08.03.2008 to 29.04.2008, namely, the date of this plaint at the rate of Rs.100/- per day with interest at 6% p.a., till date of payment; D) Directing the defendant to pay future mesne profits per day Rs.100/- from the date of the plaint till delivery of possession of the demised premises to the plaintiff; E) Directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit and F) To pass such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice, as against the defendant projecting and portraying to the effect that the defendant took on lease the demised premises, and that he has to be evicted on various grounds as found set out in the plaint. Written Statement was filed resisting the suit; whereupon issues have been framed. Ultimately the suit was dismissed on discussion of various issues, as against which an appeal was filed by the landlord for nothing to be dismissed confirming the judgment of the Lower Court, and as against which the Second Appeal has been filed on various grounds. Written Statement was filed resisting the suit; whereupon issues have been framed. Ultimately the suit was dismissed on discussion of various issues, as against which an appeal was filed by the landlord for nothing to be dismissed confirming the judgment of the Lower Court, and as against which the Second Appeal has been filed on various grounds. This Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law: ''Is it legally justifiable in law in authorising the respondent to continue in possession by dismissing the suit even after the termination of tenancy under Ex.A1 particularly when legality and validity of such notice, is not at all questioned in terms of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act?'' 3. The learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff in all fairness would submit that the house in which the suit property is situated is coming within the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, and as such, the landlord ought to have filed a RCOP for eviction as per the provisions of the said Act. Unwittingly and unknowingly, the suit was filed. 4. Suo motu, I would like to frame the following substantial question of law: ''Whether the building in respect of which the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the tenant, is situated within the area covered by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act?'' 5. The answer is obvious and axiomatic in view of the trite principle of law that in such arrears the landlord who wants to evict a tenant should necessarily invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act and not by approaching the Civil Court. Accordingly, the judgments rendered by the Courts below on various issues shall stand obliterated and set aside. However, the ultimate decision that the suit had to be dismissed shall hold good. It is made clear that the landlord is at liberty to invoke the appropriate provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act to get evicted the tenant as per law by approaching the Rent Controller. 6. The Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.