In a second appeal regarding a land recovery suit, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that rent payment after notice did not constitute waiver. The court found no substantial question of law and confirmed the decree for possession.
Second appeal dismissed with costs; judgment and decree of lower courts confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:12.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.1035 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Annapoorna ... Appellant/Defendant
Vs.
Sri Vengeeswarar Alagar Perumal and Nagathamman Koil Devasthanam, reptd. By its Hereditary Trustee, Mrs.Chamundeshwari having office at Saidapet Road, Chennai – 600 026.
[ Hereditary Trustee name changed as Mrs.Chamundeshwari instead of G.Prem Anand vide order of Court dated 02.03.2021 made in C.M.P.No.3848 of 2021 in
S.A.No.1035 of 2008] ... Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2008 made in A.S.No.427 of 2007 passed by the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006 passed by the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and made in O.S.No.2095 of 2004.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Bala Subramanian
For Respondent: Mr.R.Narendran *****
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2008 passed in A.S.No.427 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006 passed in
O.S.No.2095 of 2004 on file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
found that the plaintiff had received the arrears of rent from the defendant without prejudice to his contentions raised under Ex.A1 notice. The Courts below are found to be justified in rejecting the abovesaid contention of the defendant, particularly by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (2) MLJ 414.
law and when they are not shown to be in any manner, perverse, illogical and irrational, I do not find any valid reason warranting interference to the same. In such view of the matter, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this second appeal.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(SSA)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mfa
To
2.The III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
Copy to
The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.M.Bala Subramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.16833
S.A.No.1035 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
BR(CO) CB(26/10/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether payment of arrears of rent after termination notice results in a waiver of such notice.
Whether the appellate court should interfere when the lower courts' findings are not perverse, illogical, or irrational.
Whether relying on benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act is maintainable when not pleaded in the written statement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2006 (2) MLJ 414Relied on¶23
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Annapoorna
Sri Vengeeswarar Alagar Perumal and Nagathamman Koil Devasthanam
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
