M.Rajendran v. The Idol Of Arulmighu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.08.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA SECOND APPEAL (MD) No.364 of 2017 and M.P.(MD).No.7683 of 2017 M.Rajendran ... Appellant / Appellant / Defendant Vs.

The idol of Arulmighu Mariyamman by its Trustee Mariyamman Temple, Malligaipuram, Tennur, Trichy -17, Trichy District.

...

Respondent/ Respondent / Plaintiff PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree, dated 24.11.2011, made in A.S.No.58 of 2011 by the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 06.10.2010, made in O.S.No.1058 of 2005 by the learned 1st Additional District Munsif, Trichy. For appellant ...

Mr.R.Sundar For respondent .... Mr.H.Lakshmishankar

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendant, who is the tenant in the suit property, is the appellant.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, who is Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, Tennur. The suit property is a shop measuring about 408 square feet and the building thereon bearing Door No.57. It is stated that the appellant has been running a grocery shop in the same. The plaintiff / temple has purchased the suit property on 10.01.1950 under Ex.A1 and orally leased out the same to the defendant for monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The defendant had defaulted from April 2001 from the payment of rent. Notice under Ex.A2, dated 14.05.2001, was issued by the plaintiff which was replied by the defendant on 21.05.2001. In the written statement, the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff. Though the defendant had set up the title himself and produced various documents viz., Exs.B7 to B11, the said documents were disbelieved by both the Courts below. The Courts below have concurrently found that the property belongs to the plaintiff / temple as per Ex.A1 and that the defendant is not

the owner of the property as claimed by him in the written statement.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. When the tenancy is admitted by the defendant, the question of setting up title in himself will not arise. It is pointed out that the appellant had sub-let the property to another person. By subletting, the requirement of the defendant ceased to exist. Admittedly, the tenancy of the defendant was only oral. Now, the tenancy is also terminated. When the defendant had defaulted from April, 2001 and when his tenancy has been terminated, his possession of the property is that of a trespasser. Both the Courts below have concurrently ordered eviction of the defendant from the suit property and also decreed the suit for recovery of the arrears of rent giving liberty to the plaintiff to file separate application for future profits against the defendant till the date of recovery of possession.

5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a strenuous attempt, he could not substantiate his claim. There is no question of law arising out of the above said facts. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below do not warrant any interference of this Court. This second appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. In the result, this second appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

7.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant prayed for time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that there is a huge arrears recoverable from the appellant. As there is a decree for recovery of amount, it is open to the plaintiff to put the decree in execution. Six months time is granted to the defendant from today to vacate the premises, without expecting the plaintiff to file an execution petition.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy.

2.The I-Additional District Munsif, Trichy.

COPY TO:

The Record Keeper, V.R Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.R.SUNDAR Advocate in SR. No. 74813 +1cc to Mr.H.LAKSHMI SHANKAR Advocate in SR. No. 74973 GCG JS/SKN.RSK/SAR.2/4.10.2017/3P-6C S.A.(MD) No.364 of 2017 28.08.2017