Madras High Court
V. Raju vs Angammal on 30 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)1MLJ426
JUDGMENT Srinivasan, J.
1. The only question argued by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the suit instituted by the respondent for eviction is not maintainable inasmuch as a notice under Section 11 of the City Tenants Protection Act has not been given prior to the filing of the suit. The courts below have rejected the contention of the appellant holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of the said Act in view of the specific denial of title in a prior proceeding, viz., O.S. No. 323 of 1984. It is argued in this Court that the question whether a person is entitled to the benefits of the Act and whether the Act is applicable to a particular proceeding can be gone into only when there is a valid suit on the file and in the absence of a notice under Section 11 of the Act, the terms of which are mandatory, there is no valid suit on the file of the court in which any question can be decided. Consequently, it is submitted that the suit in the present case ought to have been rejected in limine by the courts below as admittedly there was no notice under Section 11 of the Act.
2. There was a notice prior to the filing of the suit but it is not one under Section 11 of the Act, as according to the plaintiff, the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the Act as he had already denied the title of the plaintiff in another proceeding O.S. No. 323 of 1984. In the written statement, the defendant did not raise any specific plea that notice under Section 11 of the Act ought to have been given. But, on the other hand, a vague plea is raised in paragraph 7 of the written statement that the notice issued by the plaintiff was not valid in law.
3. Again in paragraph 9, it is stated that there is no legal notice issued by the plaintiff according to law. Construing the said written statement as one raising the present question argued by learned Counsel for the appellant, I have no hesitation to hold that the view taken by the courts below is correct in law. The appellant having denied categorically the title of the plaintiff to the suit property, is not entitled to claim the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act and consequently, there is no question of the suit being invalid for want of notice under Section 11 of the Act. I have considered the question of denial of title disentitling the person concerned to the benefits of the Act in Subborayan v. Devadoss Nadar (1991) 2 L.W. 355. I have held that when there is a denial of title, the person who has denied the title of the landlord cannot claim the benefits of the enactment.
4. That view was accepted and followed by Abdul Hadi, J in his judgment in The Idols of Sri Manundisami and Sri Perumal, Anandapuram, Varagoneri, Tiruchi, represented by their Hereditary Trustee, Vijayaraghavan v. Ayilammal Ammal S.A. No. 75 of 1982 and C.R.P. No. 272 of 1982 dated 30.6.1991. The learned Judge has held that in view of the denial of title, no notice under Section 11 of the Act was necessary.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant places reliance on a judgment of the single Judge of this Court in Ranganathan Chettiar v. Mariappa Mudali (1942) 1 M.L.J. 92. A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 334 : 55 L.W. 82 : 1942 M.W.N. 97 : 2081.C. 81. The plaintiffs were trustees of Sri Parthasarathy Temple, Triplicane. They filed the suit for ejectment of the tenants in possession of the land. One of the contentions raised was that the notice issued by the temple did not satisfy the requirement of Section 11 of the Act and the suit was not maintainable. The court held that the tenants were entitled to the benefits of the Act and in the absence of valid notice under Section 11, the suit was not maintainable. But, while dealing with the said aspect of the matter, the learned Judge observed that the plea raised by the plaintiffs that they could not issue a notice in accordance with Section 11 of the Act as they were disputing the applicability of the Act was not acceptable. The learned Judge observed that such considerations can have little weight in the face of the clear language of Section 11 of the Act which imposes the unqualified obligation upon the court not to entertain the suit in ejectment in the absence of compliance and the observation cannot be turn out of the context and interpreted independent of the facts of the case. It should be understood only in the context of the facts of the case. On the facts, the court having held that the persons in occupation were entitled to the benefits of the Act, naturally it was held that the absence of notice under Section ll invalidated the suit itself.
6. The said judgment was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Sri Agastheeswarar Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Devasthanam v. M. Narasimhan (1982) 2 M.L.J. 70 : A.I.R. 1983 Mad. 27 : 1982 T.L.N.J. 61 : (1982) 95 L.W. 412. In that case, the question was whether there was a waiver of a notice under Section 11 of the Act by filing an application under Section 9 of the Act by the tenants. The court held that before an application was filed under Section 9 of the Act, the tenants had in the written statement questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground that there was no proper notice under Section 11 of the Act. Consequently, the Bench held" that there was no waiver of the notice under Section 11 of the Act. While referring to the mandatory requirements of Section 11 of a notice before the filing of the suit, the Bench had occasion to refer to the judgment in Ranganathan Chettiar v. Mariappa Mudali (1942) 1 M.L.J. 92 : A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 334 : 55 L.W. 82 : 1942 M.W.N. 97: 2081.C. 81. The facts of the case before the Bench were entirely different and the observations made by the Bench cannot be taken out of the context. Neither the ruling of the single Judge nor the ruling of the Bench referred to above will have any application in the present case.
7. Once it is found by the court that the defendant is not a person who can claim the benefits of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, as a 'tenant' defined by the Act, on the ground that he has denied the title of the landlord, the relationship of the landlord and the tenant having been surrendered by the conduct of the defendant even prior to the filing of the suit, the contention that notice should have been issued under Section 11 of the Act is wholly unsustainable. Hence, the view taken by the courts below is proper and justified and there is no error of law whatever in the judgments of the courts below. The second appeal has no merit and it is dismissed with costs.