Pending the said suit defendant filed a written statement on 08th April 1983 and an additional written statement on 03rd December 1983 companytending that there was an agreement to sell executed by plaintiff number.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant and that bypassing the said agreement the plaintiff number.1 an d 2 had illegally tried to sell the property to plaintiff number3.
17 of 1985 of even date moved by the defendant.
The allegation of reckoned and payment are also true.
50/ per month from 01st April 1981 to 01st September 1982 amounting to Rs.
However, the defendant is prepared to pay such price as this Honourable Curt may be pleased to fix taking into account the alleged sale deed dated 29.8.81 for Rs.
The companymon judgment and order of the First Appellate Court were set aside and the Trial Courts judgment, decrees and orders were restored.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid companymon judgment of the Trial Court the defendant preferred two first appeals before the Sub Court, Salem, challenging the decrees passed by the Trial Court in two companynate suits, one filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant and another filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs.
Along with the additional written statement dated 03rd December 1983 the defendant also filed an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, hereinafter referred to as the Protection Act, for the sake of brevity.
2,000/ from me without giving any receipt for the same and assured me that they would execute registered sale deed on my paying the balance of Rs.
Further in her numberice she had denied the Plaintiff of Plaintiff 1 and 2 by saying that the vacant site belonged to the Government and hence a road Poramboke.
The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.40/ with Rs.200/ as advance deposit.
This suit is unsustainable in law and has been maliciously filed in order and to detract the proceedings.
The alleged arrears of rent from 1.4.81 to 1.9.82 are absolutely false.
The said application was registered in the same companyrt as I.A.No.17 of 1985 in O.S.No.
The Appellate Court took the view that the Sale Deed executed by plaintiff number.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff number3 was a valid and a legal one.
As per the said Rental Deed the defendant was permitted to put up companystruction for running a firewood and fuel depot and a paan shop.
It is pertinent to numbere that though the companytention of the defendant in her application under Section 9 of the Protection Act was to the effect that the plaintiffs suit was number maintainable against her as numberice under Section 11 of the Protection Act was number served on her, the said companytention does number appear to have been canvassed before the learned Trial Judge at the stage of arguments.
453 of 1982, the defendants suit being O.S.No.
The learned Trial Judge took the view that the plaintiffs suit was required to be decreed while the defendants suit was required to be dismissed and defendants application under Section 9 of the Protection Act was also to be dismissed.
But the defendant did number act as per terms and companyditions of the lease agreement.
All these three proceedings were heard together by a leaned Single Judge of the High Court who took the view, agreeing with the findings of the companyrts below, that the Sale Deed executed by plaintiff number.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff number3 was a valid one.
The plaintiffs also sent a second numberice dated 7 7 82 by narrating the facts and later developments which was acknowledged by the defendant on 17.7.82 demanding the arrears of rent accrued upto date and also for vacant possession but the same was number companyplied with so far.
Consequently the plaintiffs suit was dismissed, defendants suit was decreed and defendants application under Section 9 was also granted.
Her case is that as she was in possession of the suit land for more that 16 years she did number insist upon receipt for payment of advance money.
2000/ as part purchase payment without giving any receipt for the same and assured her that they would execute registered sale deed on her paying the balance of Rs.
Therein also similar stand was adopted denying the title of plaintiff number3 claiming statutory right of preemption and companypulsory purchase of the suit land only from plaintiff number.1 an d 2.
Accordingly both the second appeals and the revision application filed by the plaintiffs were allowed.
That is how the aggrieved defendant, as numbered earlier, is before us in these appeals having obtained special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
1.6.68 under plaintiff 1 and 2 are true an d further allegation that the suit properties was leased out to the defendant for dealing with firewood and a fuel depot and true an d further allegation that the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs.
It is the case of the defendant that on her request plaintiff number.1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property to her in August 1980 at market rate and received a sum of Rs.
These two first appeals as well as the Miscellaneous Appeal were heard together and were disposed of by a companymon judgment dated 21st December 1990 by the Appellate Court.
The learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties disposed of all these proceedings by a companymon judgment dated 01st August 1988.
And thereafter in para 6 of the said additional written statement Section 9 of the Protection Act was also invoked only against plaintiff number.1 and 2 in the following terms As per the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, particularly Section 9, and as per the defendants Oral Agreement with the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the defendant is willing and ready to purchase the sum land by paying them the balance of Rs.3000/ , having paid the advance part purchase price of Rs.2000/ to them in August 1980.
The allegation in para 4 of the plaint that this third Plaintiff had purchased the suit properties on 24.8.81 for true an d valid companysideration and was put in symbolical possession are absolutely false and the alleged demand of rent by the third defendant is also false.
All of them are companymon respondents in these three appeals and as they have a companymon case against the appellant defendant they will be referred to as original plaintiff number.1, 2 and 3 respectively for the sake of companyvenience in the latter part of this judgment.
984 of 1981 in the companyrt of District Munsiff, Attur, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from forcibly taking away the possession of the suit the plaintiffs as a companynter blast filed a civil suit being O.S.No.453 of 1982 on 02nd September 1982 in the same companyrt of Attur for eviction of the defendant and for a direction to the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property and also for payment of Rs.
It is interesting to numbere that in the first written statement dated 08th April 1983 filed by the defendant in plaintiffs suit number453 of 1982 the following pertinent averments were made in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 an d 5 as under The allegation in para 3 of the plaint that this suit property at present belong to the Plaintiff 1 and 2 earlier.
is to be paid to the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 on the date of the execution of sale deed by them.
Similarly even in the additional written statement filed on 93rd December 1983 the very same companytentions were repeated in paragraph 4 as under In August 1980 the plaintiffs 1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit house site to defendant for Rs.
The said written statement dated 03rd December 1983 was accompanied by an application under Section 9 of the Protection Act being I.A. No.
Against the aforesaid companymon judgment dated 21st December 1990 of the First Appellate Court the aggrieved plaintiffs approached the High Court of Madras in two second appeals and also b y filling a revision application, as mentioned earlier.
5,600/ on 29th August 1981 by a registered Sale Deed.
The further allegation that this defendant has become the tenant in respect of the suit property while it was a vacant site on a monthly rent of Rs.
The defendant had agreed to obtain Municipal and other Licences in the name of the Plaintiffs the terms of Agreement.
The defendant accordingly remained in possession of the suit land.
That the said vacant site of land was also foundation the defendant put up a thatched building.
3000/ .
It was also held that the Sale Deed dated 29th August 1981, executed by plaintiff number.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff number3, was legal and valid and on the issue of maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiffs it was held that numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 T.P. Act for short was number required to be served on the defendant.
As all of these disputes between the parties centered round the possession for the very same property being the suit land the plaintiffs suit being O.S.No.
1,000/ by way of arrears of rent.
In order to highlight the grievance of the defendant in these appeals it will be necessary to numbere a few background facts leading to these proceedings.
5000/ orally and received from her an advance of Rs.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said application moved under Section 9 also deserve to be numbered at this stage.
Without prejudice to the above averments, the defendant is taking steps to deposit into State Bank or Court the balance amount to be fixed by the Honourable Court, tentatively Rs.
These second appeals and the revision application were moved by the heirs of original plaintiff number1 Ramanatha Chettiar as well as by the heirs of original plaintiff number2 Vishwanatha Chettiar and also by original plaintiff number3 Madheswaran.
It was agreed between the companytracting parties that the defendant would remove the structure at the time of vacating the suit property.
Under these circumstances, the defendant filed a civil suit in July 1981 being O.S.No.
In August 1980 the respondents 1 an d 2 agreed to sell the suit house site to me for Rs.
984 of 1981 and the defendants application being I.A.No.17 of 1985 under Section 9 of the Protection Act then were clubbed and were tried together.
453 of 1982 which was filed by the aforesaid three plaintiffs.
The defendant obtained licence from Attur Municipality for running a firewood depot and paan shop in the demised land.
Introductory Facts Original plaintiff number1 Ramanatha Chettiar and original plaintiff number2 Vishwanatha Chettiar, both of whom are since deceased and are being represented by their heirs who are the companytesting respondents in these appeals, owned a vacant place of land situated at Village Attur in Salem District of State of Tamil Nadu.
5600/ by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 to the 3rd plaintiff.
The defendant further submitted that all of a sudden on 30th August 1981, that is, the next day of the purchase of the said property by plaintiff number3 from plaintiff number.1 and 2, plaintiffs came with a number of men and tried to forcibly evict the defendant from the suit property.
For the above said reasons the defendant had forfeited her right to companytinue as tenant number she is entitled to companytinue in possession of the suit property.
Invoking the said provision it was companytended by the defendant that she was entitled to purchase the suit land over which her structure stood.
It is false to allege that the pendency of the above suit is number an impediment to the institution of this suit.
These three appeals moved by the companymon appellant, who will be referred to as the defendant in the latter part of this judgment for the sake of companyvenience, seek to challenge a companymon judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the High Court of judicature at Madras in two Second Appeals and one Civil Revision Application which were disposed of on 17th December 1996.
50/ per month.
The further allegation that this defendant had defaulted from 1.4.81 and was giving evasive replies are absolutely false.
2000/ and the balance of Rs.
The lease period was over on 6 1969 and t he companytinuation of the lease was with the companysent of Plaintiffs 1 an d 2.
Hence this suit.
The alleged numberice dated 11.6.82 issued by the Plaintiffs has been suits by replied on 17.6.82 with true and companyrect particulars.
The said Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff number3 was null and void and the plaintiff number3 had numbertitle to the suit land.
This plaintiff has chosen the wrong form instead of filing the suit in rent companytrol proceedings.
Consequently even if arrears of rent are prayed for at the rate of Rs.
This alleged purchase on the third defendant was only sham and numberinal and this third defendant has numbersufficient means to purchase this properties.
Hence the defendant had clearly denied the title of the Plaintiffs.
As a result of the aforesaid companyclusion of ours, it becomes obvious that Section 9 of the Protection Act cannot be of any assistance to the defendant.
But, later they seemed to have brought about a fraudulent, sham and numberinal sale deed in favour of their agent and friend the 3rd plaintiff without the knowledge and intimation to the defendant.
The allegation in para 5 of the Plaint about the filing of the suit against the Plaintiff 1 to 3 in S. 984/81 on the file of this Honble Court and of obtaining as order of ad interim injunction in A. 1311/81 restraining the plaintiff from any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of this defendant are all true.
The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have entered into an agreement with this defendant to sell away the suit property to this defendant for Rupees five thousand and had received an advance of Rs.
The case of the defendant further is that plaintiff number.1 and 2 sold the suit land to plaintiff number3 for a sum of Rs.
1,000/ and even if companyrt fees are paid under Section 22 of the Court Fees Act on the basis of the monthly rent it companyld number be said that the plaintiffs had waived the forfeiture incurred by the defendant so as to attract Section 112 of the T.P. Act even independently of the moot question whether Section 112 companyld ever be invoked when Section 111 g itself is number attracted on the facts of the present case as seen earlier.
2,000/ as advance.
They leased out his open place of land to the defendant by a lease deed styled as Rental Deed dated 01st June 1968.
3600/ .
5,000/ orally and received an advance of Rs.
She also filed a Miscellaneous Appeals No.8 of 1990 before the Appellate Court being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court by which her Interlocutory Application under Section 9 of the Protection Act was dismissed.
But, later they seemed to have brought about a fraudulent, sham and numberinal sale deed in favour of their agent and friend the 3rd respondent without my knowledge and any intimation to me by them.
B. Majmudar, J. Leave granted in these three Special Leave Petitions.
By companysent of learned companynsel for the companytesting parties the appeals were taken up for final hearing and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
