Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. The brief facts as stated in the plaint is that the suit property originally belongs to one S.Raja Iyengar son of S.Shamanna. The said S.Raja Iyengar is the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and grandfather of plaintiffs 4 to 6. The said S.Raja Iyengar had let the suit property admeasuring about 18,900 square feet which includes land and buildings for lease on 18.01.1935 under a Registered Document for a period of 15 years subject to the terms and conditions thereunder to N.R. Narisimha lyer, N.R. Sitaram lyer, and N.L.Srinivasan sons of N.K.M.Rama lyer, who were carrying on the business under the name and style of Narasimha Iyer Srinivasa lyer and Company. The lease deed was registered along with the copies of photographs and drawings depicting the buildings of the property duly signed by the Lessors & Lessees. In the said Registered Lease deed dated 18.01.1935 the 1st respondent was not a lessee. On expiry of the above said lease period further lease deeds were executed by the S.Raja lyengar in favour of N.R. Narasimha lyer, N.R.Sitarama lyer, and N.L.S.Seethalakshmi Ammal and the 1st defendant and hence the 1st defendant was a lessee under the lease deed dated 14.09.1951 and thereafter. As per the said lease deed 14.09.1951, the 1st defendant has been mentioned as an Assignee, of N.R.Narasimha Iyer, N.R.Sitarama lyer, and N.L.S.Seethalakshmi Ammal. After the death of Sri.S.Raja lyengar, the lease https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis deeds were periodically extended by the legal heirs of Sri.S.Raja Iyengar in favour of the 1st defendant subject to the terms and conditions under the respective lease deeds. As per the terms and conditions of the lease the defendants have to remove the additions and alterations and on determination of efflux of the lease period the defendants are all not entitled for any compensation for the alteration and additions. Subsequently the defendants are under 11 months lease agreement and they are monthly tenants. At the time of execution of the unregistered lease deed dated 25.11.1990, the defendants have informed they were not in a position to run the theater due to the loss incurred continuously, further buildings are old and in a dilapidated condition. Hence the 1st plaintiff informed the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession of the property. However, based on the request of the defendants, on sympathetic ground and to have smooth relation had extended the lease period and on expiry requested the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession of the property, but defendants have expressed that they are in a financial problem and need more period to settle the issues. Accordingly with an intention not to extend the lease, the plaintiff have given lease to the defendant for a period of eleven months only from 25.11.1990. Periodically the 11 months unregistered lease was extended and the last and final extension was on 23.04.1997, commencing on 25.04.1997, for a period of 11 months which expired https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis on 25.03.1998, wherein it was specifically informed to the defendants that they are not willing to execute the lease deed for a further period after 25.03.1998 and the defendants had accepted. Infact the defendants have not even paid the monthly rent of Rs.17,500/- per month for the past 9 months and the same is willful and wanton. Further it was informed during the month of December 1997, that they will not either extend the lease nor register the lease deed after 25.03.1998, enraged the defendants have not paid the monthly rent. Further the defendant has received a notice from the District Collector Madurai N.K. No.C1/113796/97 dated 26.11.97 that the 'E' permit for running the cinema will not be granted unless the defendant has a registered lease deed. Hence the defendants requested that they are ready to pay arrears of rent and on payment requested to extend and register the lease deed, for which the plaintiffs have refused and expressed their unwillingness for the same. Accordingly, the 1st plaintiff has sent a telegram to the defendant and also informed to the District Collector by a letter dated 06.01.1998. As such the lease deed finally determined and terminated by 25.03.1998 both under the law and on facts. Therefore, the possession of the schedule property held by the defendants are illegal and unlawful possession. Further the 1st plaintiff has also sent a letter by registered post and also in person on 06.01.1998, to the Collector of Madurai a licensing authority for running https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cinema stating the plaintiffs are not registering the lease and not extending the lease period after 25.03.1998.

9. The defendants had filed written statement stating that the plaintiffs are the owner of the vacant site but not the buildings that now exist in the suit property. The suit is not valid, the cause title is defective, hence the suit has to be dismissed in limine. The plaintiffs are estopped by documents and their conduct from alleging that they are the owners of the building and the allegation regarding the lease deed are not correct and the documents may be referred for correct particulars. In the lease deed the defendants were permitted to put super-structure for theatre to exhibit films by demolishing some portion and altering the rest of the buildings, hence through document dated 14.9.1951 lease is only for vacant site and not the buildings that existed in 1935. The document itself mentions that the 14.9.1951 lease deed completely supersedes the terms and conditions of the Registered Deed dated 18.01.1935. Thus, even though in 1935 small portion of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the building were leased, but all the buildings were demolished to the knowledge of the lessor and hence what was leased later was only vacant land. The defendants submitted that they are entitled to compensation for the super structure and the allegations to this effect in paragraph 5 was denied. Infact for such relief the defendants had filed C.T.OP. 19/1998 under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and any agreement contrary to the City Tenants Protection Act, is not valid. The defendants never informed the plaintiff that they were not in a position to run the theatre, incurred loss etc. Infact licence under P.W.D. for structural soundness certificate of the buildings was issued every year and the they are eager to run the theatre, hence filed writ petitions and writ appeals to secure licence from the Collector for the theatre. It was the plaintiffs, who was giving pinpricks and contrary to the benefits given under the stature, adopted and doing all the tactics to get possession at any cost. Hence the allegations in paragraph 6 of the plaint are hereby denied as false. The defendants agreed for 11 months leases, since the 1st plaintiff promised that he would sell the vacant site to the defendants after the expiry of the lease. Infact, the 4th defendant went to Bangalore several times at the request of 1st plaintiff for negotiation and the defendant never accepted for the termination of the lease and eviction. They were and are ready and willing to purchase the vacant site as per the provisions of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act if the lease is terminated. When the plaintiff sent a registered notice to quit, they had already filed a petition under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The extension of several lease deed for 11 months will show the anxiety of the plaintiff to evict the defendants at any cost and the intention of the defendants to retain possession and get the sale deed of the vacant land. The plaintiffs never informed the defendants that they would be evicted but negotiations were going on for sale of land to defendants. The allegations in paragraph 7 of the plaint are not correct, in fact, the plaintiff took all steps to cause loss to the defendants by not getting the licences. The defendant were regular in payment of rent. The payment of 9 months were deferred due to the negotiation between the defendants and plaintiffs. The defendants had already deposited the nine-months rent in Court as soon as they entered appearance in the Court through the lawyer on 10.6.1998 and hence the defendants’ possession is not illegal and unlawful. While the super structure tax is levied in the name of the defendants it cannot be said that the possession in illegal. The allegations in para 8 to 10 of the plaint are denied. The cinema is running for several decades and false allegation are made in paragraph 8 as if the cinema cannot run. The District Collector who was the licensing authority was issuing the license since the theatre fulfilled all conditions and statutory Acts. He https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was prepared to issue the license if a registered lease deed was executed by the plaintiffs. The action of plaintiffs in terminating the lease is wanton, vexatious, malafide and only to circumvent the provision of law. They cannot be allowed to plead anything since all their attempts are only attempt the circumvent to law and to deny the defendants of their lawful rights. The allegations in para 9 and 10 of the plaint will show the attitude of the plaintiffs. The non-issuing of license is not due to the reason alleged by plaintiffs. Records and documents would throw the fuller and better particulars. The allegations in paragraph 10 are highly defamatory and the defendants reserve their right to proceed against the plaintiff for appropriate relief. The defendants have sent a reply through the lawyer stating the true facts to the plaintiffs’ legal notice asking the defendants to quit. The description of the property in the plaint is incorrect. The suit has not been properly valued and the court fee paid incorrect. There is no cause of action against the defendants and the cause of action alleged in para 12 of the plaint is false and prayed to dismiss the suit.

16. The contention of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the property was let out for lease along with super structure. But the contention of the defendants is that the alleged super structures was constructed by them and the same was not in existence earlier. Further the defendants/lessee was permitted to alter, demolish any portion and construct, hence the lease is only for vacant site, for which the defendants had produced Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 copy of judgment and decree passed in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.No.131 of 1979 to show that the existing building was constructed subsequently. Further submitted that the 1st plaintiff who has deposed as PW1 had also admitted Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 in deposition. This Court considered the rival submissions. It is seen even though initially the plaintiff had taken a stand that the lease is for land and building, but the plaintiffs had admitted that certain building was constructed later on by the defendants. Infact the Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs had argued before the Trial Court that they admit Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. However the Trail Court had held that the admission of the plaintiff cannot be considered, when the Ex.A2 lease deed dated 18.01.1935 contains the terms “vacant site and building”.

23. The Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs Srinivasa Varadhan branch further submitted that when they visited the premises along with the PWD https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Engineers liquor bottles were seen inside the building and antisocial elements are occupying the premises. Further submitted that the plaintiffs KR.Suresh and KR.Shyam had taken forceful possession of the property from the defendants and let the premises for some anti-social elements and literally the building is in the hands of antisocial elements. Further the PWD Engineer report states that windows and doors were removed. Infact the same is admitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants/lessees and submitted that the defendants were in possession of the premises until 2019. Thereafter, some unknown people 50 in number, who had shown some power of attorneys, had entered the premises and they forcefully took the possession from them in the year 2019. Even though the respondents claimed themselves to have possession of the property, literally as on date, they are not in possession of the property, since the said KR.Suresh and KR.Shyam had taken forceful possession. Infact, when this Court ordered to value the theatre, it was reported by the Learned Government Pleader that the KR.Suresh and KR.Shyam branch and his people did not allow to measure the property inspite of the direction from this Court. It was also reported that there are two houses constructed inside the theatre premises.