The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.41 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.501 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli.
2. The defendant is the appellant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.501 of 2012 for recovery of possession and for past and future damages for the use and occupation of the suit property and also for the arrears of rent of Rs.71,840/-. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is belonged to the Catholic Mission and is a trust property. The plaintiff is a chief tenant under the Catholic Mission. The defendant took possession of the property by entering into a lease agreement on 04.01.2007 for running an electronic service centre. The plaintiff received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance and the defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.160/- per day as rent. The defendant used to pay the rent only after repeated demands and requests. Since the plaintiff required the premises, he requested the defendant to vacate the suit property and that the defendant also agreed to vacate the suit property by the end of October 2009, however the defendant has not vacated the premises. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit.
3. According to the defendant, he is a sub-tenant under the plaintiff since 04.01.2007. The defendant also admitted that the rent per day was Rs.160/- for the suit property. Further the defendant contended that the suit is only an attempt to vacate the defendant and that he is the only breadwinner of the family. The defendant also disputed the fact that the plaintiff is requiring the property for his own use and occupation. Further according to the defendant, the termination notice issued under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not in conformity with the procedures. In these circumstances, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Before the trial Court on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and 11 documents, viz., Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and two documents viz., Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the case of both parties, decreed the suit by directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the property, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.62,240/- towards the arrears of rent and also directed the plaintiff to initiate a separate proceeding under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure for future damages.
5. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.41 of 2014 and the lower Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
6. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendant has filed the above Second Appeal.
7. Heard Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.C.Deepak, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. The appellant has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law in the Second Appeal.
(I) Whether the Courts below are correct and justified in decreeing the suit without deciding the question of waiver of termination of lease on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and the claim of arrears of rent by the plaintiff subsequent to exhibit A.2?
(II) Whether the Courts below are justified in granting the relief for arrears of rent when admittedly a huge advance of Rs.1,15,000/- is available with the plaintiff and the defendant is entitled to set off the same legality and equitably, against the claim for arrears?
(III) Whether the suit for eviction is maintainable when the subject matter is a ?sub lease? in respect of a building where the Rent Control Act applies and in the absence of any specific proof that Section 29 of the Rent Control Act will exempt the plaintiff from instituting a Rent Control Petition for eviction??
9. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, it could be seen that the defendant is the sub-tenant under the plaintiff on a day rent of Rs.160/-. Ex.A.2 is the notice, dated 10.05.2012, issued by the plaintiff to the defendant under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Under Ex.A.2, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy. The only contention raised by the appellant is that Ex.A.2 notice is not in conformity of the provisions of
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, it is not valid. In Ex.A.2 notice, the plaintiff has stated that he required the property for his own use and occupation and also alleged that the defendant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and therefore, the defendant is liable to be evicted and sought for delivery of vacant possession on or before 31.05.2012.
10. As already stated, notice was issued on 10.05.2012. On a perusal of the notice, it is clear that the plaintiff has given 15 days' time to the defendant to evict and hand over the vacant possession of the property, therefore, it cannot be stated as an invalid notice. Ex.A.2 notice is in conformity with the provisions of the Section106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is also pertinent to note that in the Rent Control Proceedings initiated by the plaintiff against the defendant in R.C.O.P.No.62 of 2010, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition finding that the property belongs to a Charitable and Religious Institution and therefore, the Rent Control Original Petition is not maintainable. After the dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession and for other reliefs. The order passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.62 of 2010 was marked as Ex.A.1.
11. After the dismissal of the original petition, the plaintiff issued Ex.A.2 notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 10.05.2012. The oral and documentary evidences let in by the plaintiff clearly proved his case. Hence, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground much less any substantial question of law to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
To
1. The Principal District Court, Tirucirappalli.
2. The Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli..