- (1.) THE plaintiff/respondent, who is the owner of a lodging house at Coimbatore, has filed O.S.No.358 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, seeking the following reliefs:(a) For eviction of the tenant/defendant/ appellant for delivery of possession, and(b) For future mesne profits from the date of suit viz., 2.6.1982.THE trial court decreed the suit as prayed for, against which the defendant has filed the present appeal.
(2.) THE case of the respondent/ plaintiff is as follows: THE plaintiff purchased the suit properties by a registered sale deed dated 13.11.1972. In 1978 he converted the building as a lodging house and has put up 24 lodging rooms in the three storey building viz., eight rooms in the first floor, eight rooms in the second floor and eight rooms in the third floor. Six out of 24 rooms were double rooms with bath attached. THEre was an office room in the ground floor and one room for the use of dhobi on the terrace. There were almyrahs electric fittings and electric connections in each of the rooms. There is one bore well and over-head tank installed. An one H.P. motor is connected to the municipal water pipe and one three H.P. motor has been attached to the bore well to lift the water to over-head tank in the terrace. The defendant was put in possession of the suit properties for a period of three years by virtue of a lease agreement, which is unregistered, on 1.4.1979. According to the plaintiff, the lease came to an end by efflux of time on 31.3.1982. The plaintiff, on the expiry of the lease, issued a notice dated 14.5.1982 calling upon the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession on or before 31.5.1982. As the defendant did not comply with the said demand, the suit was filed. According to the plaintiff, all the rooms so let out were suitably furnished. The plaintiff claimed that the building was exempt from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under Sec.30(iii). This is because, according to the plaintiff, the lease was a composite lease. The plaint was sought to be amended by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the suit by introducing paragraphs 12(a) to 12(d) as per which the case of the plaintiff is, that the defendant was a friend of one A.Sundararajan, who introduced the defendant to him and subsequent to that, in June, 1978, the plaintiff and the defendant started the lodge even though it was not a regular partnership but was the association of persons without any formal record. According to the plaintiff, he had invested lot of. capital towards purchase of furniture and necessary equipments to run the lodge and employed one Devarajan, manufacturer of cots, and one Shanti Arts to help the plaintiff to paint the name board. The plaintiff would further submit that he and the defendant had made an application to the Coimbatore Municipality for approval to run the lodge on and from 1.4.1979 the defendant was given the lease of the lodge under the agreement Ex.A- 5. During 1980, an additional room adjacent to the office room in the ground floor was allowed to be occupied by the defendant as tenant. The plaintiff issued the quit notice dated 14.5.1982 to surrender possession of the lodging house, which was acknowledged by the defendant on 15.5.1982. In that notice there is no mention of the lodge having been leased out with furnitures, fittings etc., and even in the description of properties in the notice it is mentioned as premises bearing Door No.160, N.H.Road, Coimbatore. Even in the operative portion of the notice the plaintiff has not said that the lease was a composite lease. The further case of the plaintiff is that the building is exempt from the provisions of the Act in terms of Sec.30(1) as a period of five years from the date on which the construction had been completed had not lapsed. The case of the defendant/ appellant is as follows: The defendant denies the earlier arrangement between him and the plaintiff with respect to running of the lodging house. He pleased that it is a simple lease of building and not a composite lease and that the suit is not maintainable as the building is governed by the provisions of the Act. He also pleaded that he had furnished the lodging house and that the building is more than five years old and as such, the suit may be dismissed as not maintainable. According to the defendant, the lease entered into between the parties was only in respect of the building and it is not true that the plaintiff furnished the 24 rooms in the said lodging house and that the plaintiff had not leased out the suit building with necessary equipments in order to make the lease as a composite lease. It was the defendant who had furnished all the 24 rooms suitably by putting up costs, beds, pillows, tables, chairs, mirrors, tube lights, fans, wash basins, hot water heaters, etc., at his cost and commenced the lodging business under the name and style of Balaji Lodge with effect from 9.6.1978.
(3.) THE defendant would submit that the building was not exempt from the provisions of Sec.30(1) of the Act under Sec.30(iii) of the Act. THE case of the plaintiff that it was a composite lease is belied not only from the lease agreement Ex.A-5, which does not show any indication that the lease in question was a composite lease, but on various other documents marked. Even the notice to quit Ex.A-7 does in no manner indicate that the lease was a composite lease. Further, the plaintiff not having complied with the requirement of Sec.30(1) of the Act by notifying the local authorities within five years from the date of completion of the building he could not claim the benefit of exemption under Sec.30(iii) of the Act. THE defendant also strongly denied the existence of any partnership or association between himself and the plaintiff and submits that there was no proof whatsoever for such a case. In sum and substance the case of the defendant was:(a) The lease entered into between the parties was only in respect of building and not a composite lease and on the. own showing of the plaintiff it cannot be considered as a composite lease.(b) Neither in the plaint nor in the notice to quite, it is indicated that the lease was a composite lease and only in the amended plaint a new case was sought to be introduced to prove that the lodging house already existed when the property was leased out to the plaintiff, for which there was no proof at all, in the form of official documents about the existence of lodging house.(c) The building was not constructed within five years prior to the institution of the suit and the claim by the plaintiff was not true and the requirements of Sec.30(iii) of the Act by notifying the concerned authorities about the completion of the building was not complied with, which disentitles the plaintiff the claim exemption under Sec.30(l) of the Act.(d) The lease deed Ex.A-5 being unregistered was not valid and was void in the eyes of law and no court can take notice of such a lease agreement to decide the rights of parties and also the nature of the transaction entered into between the parties.(e) The notice to quit dated 14.5.1982 and the service alleged to have been effected have no relevance to the case and the notice to quit was in any event defective. The plaintiff marked Exs.A-1 to A-11 and examined himself as P.W.1, one Sundararajan as P.W.2 and once Devarajan supplier of furniture as P.W. 3. The defendant marked Exs.B-1 to Ex.B-15 and examined himself as D.W.1, one Sundaresan as D.W.2 and one Govindaraj as D.W. 3. The trial court framed the following eight issues:(1) Whether the plaintiff has converted his building as a lodging house in 1987 and leased out the same to the defendant for a period of three, years from 1.4.1979?(2) Whether there is a proper, valid and legally enforceable lease deed?(3) Whether the lease expired on 31.3.1982?(4) Whether the suit building is exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?(5) Whether there has been a valid notice to quit?(6) Whether the plaintiff has leased out the property along with furnitures and fittings?(7) Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?(8) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?The trial court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and granted a decree as prayed for granting two months time to the defendant to vacate. The ascertainment of future mesne profits was relegated under O.20, Rule 12, C.P.C. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant on various grounds as set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. ;