T M NAWABJAN Vs. PIYARI BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Subramania Iyer for the respondents.

(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the plaintiff against the order pased in R.E.P. No. 369/87 in O.S. No. 1097/83 dismissing the said E.P. as not executable.

(3.) THE first respondent filed a written statement which was adopted by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner that the suit property was leased out to the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- is false and the first respondent never entered into any agreement and that the property was leased out to the husband of the first defendant, who is the 2nd respondent in the suit and that the petitioner has leased out to the 2nd respondent only a vacant site who put up the superstructure at a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Since there is no cause of action against the respondent, the suit has to be rejected. The trial Court framed necessary issues for trial. Issue No. 1 relates to title to the suit property of the plaintiff/petitioner herein. Issue No. 2 relates to the lease set up by the defendants/respondents and Issue No. 4 relates to the relief for declaration and possession of the suit property as prayed for. Issues were also framed in regard to the defendants' entitlement to the City Tenants Protection Acts. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence let in clearly held that the petitioner/plaintiff has leased out the house alone which was purchased by him under Ex. A1 and that the lease was not in respect of a vacant site as claimed by the defendants. In conclusion the Court below held that the petitioner has got title to the suit property and the lease set up by the respondents/defendants regarding vacant site alone was not proved and that the defendants are not entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants' Protection Act. On issue No. 4, the Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to the property and the defendants who have not paid the rent and denied the title of the plaintiff are bound to deliver possession to the plaintiff. In the result, the Court below decreed the suit with costs.