119 of 1973 for recovery of arrears of rent filed by Respondent 2 also came to be dismissed but however, Original Suit No.
212 of 1973 .
119 of 1973.
1099 of 1979 arising out of OS No.
The injunction was also prayed against Respondent 2 from interfering in his possession.
As against this Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the landlady supported the judgment passed by the High Court.
Sometime in 1973 Original Suit No.
6760 61 of 1991.
During the pendency of the said proceedings the appellant filed Original Suit No.
This decree is final between the parties.
The dispute in this appeal is companyfined to a tenanted premises situated in Mattuplayam Road, Coimbatore wherein the appellant is running a hotel under the name and style Ganesh Lodge Ganesh Bhavan.
The net result, therefore, is that the appellants Original Suit No.
122 of 1980 filed by the landlady and companysequently dismissed Original Suit No.
Aggrieved by the companymon judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, Coimbatore the appellant filed Appeal No.
The High Court in its exhaustive judgment has dealt with all the companytentions raised by the appellant and companye to the companyclusion that the tenancy in the name of Respondent 2, the elder brother of the appellant was number for and on behalf of the joint family but he had obtained the said lease for his own business with which the appellant had numberconcern.
The landlady Respondent 15 initiated the eviction proceedings against the tenant Respondent 2 before the Rent Controller being Rent Control Original Petition RCOP No.
All these appeals were filed in the High Court of Madras.
The appellant had failed to produce reliable and companyvincing evidence to hold that the eviction order in RCOP No.
These appeals were heard by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras who by its judgment and decree dated 21 12 1990 dismissed Appeals Nos.
The landlady also filed Appeal No.
559 of 1972 RCOP No.
This was a suit filed by the appellant for partition and accounts.
1099 of 1979 and 958 of 1985 filed by the appellant and Respondent 2 respectively.
15,000 from the appellant.
Another suit bearing Original Suit No.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal may be summarised as under Admittedly the property in dispute was owned and possessed by the mother of Dr. Mrs. Thangam Vergeese Respondent 15 herein .
Narayana Rao Kubevoor Respondent 2 herein took the suit premises as a tenant from the mother of Dr. Mrs. Thangam Vergeese and started running hotel business therein.
559 of 1972 Respondent 2 filed Appeal No.
559 of 1972 against Respondent 2 and the other members of the joint family and also joined the landlady as defendant.
This suit was on the premise that the appellant is a sub lessee.
This Court granted leave in SIP C No.
122 of 1980 challenging the legality and companyrectness of the decree passed by the High Court in OS No.
559 of 1972 .
Original Suit No.
This Court vide its order dated 26 4 1991 dismissed SLP C No.
The appellant made an application for being impleaded as a party since he was vitally companycerned with the companyduct of the proceeding and the result thereof.
559 of 1972 and Original Suit No.
The appellant aggrieved by this judgment and decree passed by the High Court preferred SLPs C Nos.
It was alleged by the appellant in the plaint that the suit property was a joint family property and Respondent 2 was the karta of the joint family and had obtained a lease in his name for and on behalf of the joint family.
250 of 1972 was heard and disposed of in favour of the landlady Respondent 15 .
250 of 1972.
6761 of 1991 arising out of Appeal No.
However, the Division Bench allowed Appeal No.
The High Court further found that Respondent 2 original tenant had sub let the suit property to the appellant without the companysent of the landlady and, therefore, the decree cannot be declared as companylusive or fraudulent.
This is how the present appeal survives in respect of the claim preferred by the appellant in his Original Suit No.
250 of 1972.
Since all the 3 suits were filed in the Court of the Sub Judge, Coimbatore, they were taken up for hearing together and the learned Sub Judge, Coimbatore by his judgment and decree dated 31 8 1979 disposed of these suits as under Original Suit No.
122 of 1980 on the file of the High Court arising out of Suit No.
119 of 1973 came to be filed by Respondent 2 in the civil companyrt for recovery of arrears of rent for the past and future and possession of leasehold articles valued at Rs.
The High Court further held that the eviction decree suffered by Respondent 2 original tenant was neither companylusive number obtained by fraud by the landlady.
212 of 1973 filed by the appellant.
122 of 1980 filed by the landlady.
All these appeals were disposed of by a companymon judgment.
212 of 1973 was filed by the appellant on 23 3 1973 in the civil companyrt for declaration of his leasehold right in the tenanted premises and hotel business and for restraining the landlady from executing the eviction order passed in RCOP No.
During the pendency of Original Suit No.
Respondent 2 denied that the suit property was a joint family property and pleaded that the tenancy was in his name in which other members of the joint family had numberconcern.
212 of 1973 for declaration and injunction filed by the appellant against Respondent 2 and the landlady came to be decreed.
958 of 1985 arising out of the judgment and decree passed in OS No.
212 of 1973.
212 of 1973.
6760 of 1991 arising out of Original Suit No.
It is true that Respondent 2 filed the companysent statement and suffered a decree for eviction.
The suit property was also included in the said suit.
P. Kurdukar, J. Civil Appeal No.
250 of 1972 was either companylusive or frauduent.
559 of 1972 for partition and accounts filed by the appellant was dismissed.
4484 of 1991 is filed by the appellant plaintiff challenging the legality and companyrectness of the judgment and order dated 21 12 1990 passed by the High Court in Appeal No.
122 of 1980.
This eviction petition was filed only against the tenant Respondent 2 .
250 of 1972 on the ground that the tenant had sub let the premises without obtaining her companysent.
This application was, however, rejected by the Rent Controller and resultantly the appellant was number impleaded as a party to RCOP No.
