A GANESAN Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakkottai dated 24.01.2014 in A.S.No.19 of 2013 confirming the Judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi in O.S.No.90 of 2012 dated 05.06.2013.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint scheduled property originally belonged to first defendant Municipality and one Ranaganathan was the tenant under the first defendant. It is stated that the said Renganathan, who was the brother of the plaintiff, on 06.05.1999, transferred his right of tenancy in favour of the plaintiff vide agreement dated 06.05.1999. The second defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and the third defendant is the wife of the second defendant.

(3.) Denying the averments in the plaint, the defendants filed the written statement, wherein, it is admitted that the said Renganathan was the tenant in the suit property under the first defendant. It is contended that the said Renganathan had neither executed an agreement on 06.05.1999 in favour of the plaintiff nor transferred the right of tenancy to the plaintiff. Since he could run the business in the suit scheduled property, Renganathan requested defendants No.2 and 3 to do business in the suit scheduled property 12 years prior to the filing of the suit. The third defendant was paying the monthly rent in the name of Renganathan by way of cheque to the first respondent. Subsequently on 31.2008, the third defendant applied for transfer of tenancy in her favour. Accordingly, the first defendant Municipality transferred the tenancy in favour of third defendant. The plaintiff, after sending the legal notice, threatened defendants No.2 and 3, to vacate the premises. Hence, it is stated that the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment over the property and he is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.