Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
3. Written statement was fiied contesting.,frs~e suit, wherein, it was alleged that, on account of with the demand for more advance and enhan.,ced_i."re'rit,l' t~h_eI plaintiff caused the iegai noticezzonl frivoi'o_us'Aan_id--.ve:xati,_oi:s if ground, with an oblique motive toi..ev--i.ct the'..'de'fendaint"andp to iet out the suit premise'si.:t'o third".pe'rsons}:for higher advance and rent. ."Cther_.~'ail¢'g.,§fi§'ri-s, made in the plaint were denied. On accoun-t'V_o'f"fthé made to the plaint,'"'*ad:d;itioVnai-- "written"statement was fiied on 29.01.2010'.
_ .. 4,. 'V i'»he"iiriai'Court raised the following issues:
*..i_) Does plaintiff prove that he has vaiidiy V K terminated the tenancy of defendant? A '.'~"ii'j_'V.i5i)V Does defendant proves that this Court 'V has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reiiefs claimed in the plaint?
iv) What Decree or Order?
5. Piaintiff deposed as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. For defendant, DWs.1\®and 2 deposed. /' Written arguments were fiied by both Considering the rivat contentionsfiand after»vappreeiationllofy"V-_V the evidence,- the Trial Court h._eEd:_-~tthat';athe'''p'i'a*iifst.i\tf~:Ahas '' validly terminated the tenancy ofwlthe' defen'dantV_VVan_d the defendant has failed Court has no jurisdiction to try the...suit;*A.V:anyd .Vl'tre1aotiil"t:'r-.e_ piaintiff is entitled for the relief cg|.aimedA_in--.th:e decreed and the defendé3':n't'é}{y'ia_s directed possession of the suit prer€r1.i,s.e\ig;V:t_o 3 months, by paying from the date of suit till handgilng 'possession after deducting the payrnentsxmadelduring the pendency of the suit. Feeling detendant has filed this appeal.
"We fuily a9ree_fwith._ th_e.iHigh':"Court and the first appeiiate Court of period of iease,:..m:er_e ar;A_cepta,rice,xof'_j_V~rent"'§'for the subsequent .the_ie.sseve continued to occupy the 'said to be a conduct signdiifytng_,,V_'a.ssent*.'_to_the continuance of the lessee zeven after'e_xpiiry_::'ofjiease period".
In"-'t.he.»case of c. ALBERT MORRIS vs. ;VK.CH,OiN~D'P._:IXSEKARAN R OTHERS - (2005) 1 scc 228, it * has b¢e:ii*h¢:id as foiiows:
.. are, therefore, of the opinion that mere acceptance of rent by the iandiord, the first respondent herein, from the tenant in possession after the tease has been determined either by effiux of time or by notice to quit wouid not create a tenancy so as to confer on the efiatwhiie tenant the ./ dismissed and the orders were again questio_n-ed"b'efo~re Apex Court, wherein it was contended that,'i'i~~n7gvi'ewV"of they provision under Section 113 of the the' rent by the respondent/iand_lo~r.d even Vafterivefi'e.ct.i_ng _.notice:* under Section 111, ,__ciause,___4(xiiA).,__an1ount«edLto_V?waiver of notice to quit withinvthxe'me_an%i_ng"offV$:e'cti'on 113 of the Act and it was further in the case was on account: the iandiord, who thereby evincing an intention as subsisting. It was aiso emphaisisied fiiing the suit, the iandiord conti'nL:ed to' the rent tendered by the. tenant and piaced on the decision reported in AIR 1926 The said contention did not receive aR'ccep.tanc'e. It was heid as foliows:
the decision in the case of Shanti it-was held as follows:
'l'lin4_'tlhe iVnst"a.nt.- as we have noticed earlier, two gynotilcesyytofguli-t were given on 103' February, 1979 :,.,i-randx17"V*Ma-rch, 1979. The suit was fiied on June 2, tenant offered and the landlord accepted A for the months of April, May and thereafter. V__r'fhe'.~'guestion is whether this by itself constitute an ' " pact on the part of the landlord showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. In our view, mere acceutance of rent did not by itself constituted an act of the nature envisaged by section 113. Transfer of Prooertv Act showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. The fact remains that even after accepting the rent tendered, Ce landlord did file a