V N SELVARAJ Vs. B PADMANABAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant. The first respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession and for damages.

(2.) The case of the first respondent is that the first respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the lands and the appellant approached the first respondent for the lease of a portion of his land to start a retail outlet business in petrol stating that he secured an agency from the 2nd respondent and the first respondent agreed to grant lease on condition that the appellant should take his son as equal partner in the retail outlet business. The appellant also agreed and therefore, an extent of 18.34 cents of land was given on lease to the appellant, under a registered lease deed, dated 22.03.1996. Simultaneously, the appellant entered into a partnership with the son of the first respondent on the same day agreeing to take the son of the first respondent as a partner in the retail outlet and also promised that after getting necessary permission from the 2nd respondent, the dealership would be transferred in the name of the partnership. The son of the first respondent was also attending to the outlet business and after some time, the appellant did not take any steps to transfer the dealership in favour of the partnership and the appellant also did not pay the rent. Latter, the first respondent came to know that the appellant without the consent of the first respondent granted lease of the scheduled property to the 2nd respondent under a lease deed, dated 25.09.1998 and the appellant was not authorized to sub-lease or grant any lease in favour of the second respondent under the lease deed, dated 22.03.1996 and the lease deed, dated 25.09.1998 entered into between the appellant and the 2nd respondent was illegal and not binding on the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent issued a notice, dated 25.05.2003 to the second respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the property and the second respondent in reply stated that the appellant was entitled to be in possession of the property till 2016 and therefore, the 2nd respondent also entitled to be in possession till such time, and the second respondent was not aware of the partnership deed entered into between the appellant and the first respondent and the second respondent was not bound by the terms of the partnership deed. Thereafter, the appellant with an intention to create the records as if he was paying the rents, sent a draft for Rs.5,000/- stating that the said sum represented rent for the month of May 2003 followed by another draft for a sum of Rs.5,000/- representing the rent for June 2003 and that was duly returned by the first respondent stating that the appellant had not paid the past rents and the appellant also failed to pay the correct rent as per the agreement and thereafter, the appellant filed R.C.O.P.No.189 of 2003 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings and Lease Control Act and was depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month into that account and as the appellant, sublet the premises without the consent of the first respondent and as the appellant has committed willful default in the payment of rent, lease deed, dated 22.03.1996 was forfeited by the first respondent by issuing notice stating that the lease deed was terminated by forfeiture and the suit was filed for recovery of possession and damages towards arrears of rent.

(3.) The appellant admitted the lease agreement entered into between him and the first respondent and also stated that he was forced to enter into such partnership deed, failing which the lease would not have been given to him and the first respondent was informed about his inability to transfer the dealership in favour of the partnership as the second respondent refused to transfer the dealership in the name of the partnership and the lease in favour of the second respondent was also known to the first respondent and the first respondent also permitted the second respondent to put up construction by giving consent letter to the Municipal Corporation and the appellant was regularly paying the rent and in the year 2003, the first respondent refused to receive the rent and therefore, the appellant was forced to send the rent by draft and that was returned and thereafter, the appellant deposited the rent by filing R.C.O.P.No.189 of 2003 and therefore, contended that the lease deed cannot be forfeited as there is no default in the payment of rent and there was no sub-lease and the appellant was authorized to grant lease to the 2nd respondent as per the lease deed and therefore, the suit is not maintainable.