P.R. Shivakumar, J.@mdashThe Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 71 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District are the Appellants in the present Second Appeal.
2. As per the plaint allegations, the first Appellant was allotted five sheds, bearing S. Nos. 1 to 5 and the second Appellant was allotted one shed, bearing S. No. 6, at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Mangalapuram, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District, within the jurisdiction of Kadayanallur Sub-Registrar''s Office by the Small Industries Development Corporation, on condition that the cost of the land and shed should be paid within a period of five years in instalments. Since, the Appellants committed default, not once, but on several occasions, the second Respondent, namely, the General Manager, SIDCO, Palvei Road, Kathibara Junction, Chennai-16, issued a show-cause notice, calling upon the Appellants/Plaintiffs to show-cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled. The said show-cause notice was issued on 28.1.2005. On receipt of the said show-cause notice, the Appellants/Plaintiffs paid some amount and avoided the cancellation order being passed. Subsequently, they again committed default in payment of the instalments, pursuant to which another show-cause notice was issued on 10.9.2005. As no cause was shown and the account was also not regularized by making payment of the defaulted instlaments with penal interest, the second Respondent passed an order on 2.1.2006, cancelling the allotments made in favour of the Appellants. In the said order of cancellation, the Appellants were called upon to vacate the industrial sheds and deliver vacant possession of the same to the SIDCO authorities. Contending that the arrangement between the Appellants and SIDCO was a lease-cum-sale agreement and the jural relationship between the Appellants and the SIDCO authorities as lessee-lessor did not get snapped by the order of cancellation of allotments and that for terminating the lease which was for industrial purpose, the second Respondent ought to have issued notice giving six months time, but, the notice of eviction prescribed only 30 days time and therefore, the same was legally not sustainable, the Appellants herein/Plaintiffs approached the trial Court with the suit for permanent injunction not to evict the Appellants/Plaintiffs without following due process of law.
3. The suit was resisted by the Respondents herein, contending that the relationship cannot be said to be purely lessor-lessee relationship; that the allotment order was cancelled legally in accordance with the terms of the allotment order; that on cancellation of the allotment order, as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, notice to quit was issued requiring the Appellants/Plaintiffs to vacate and hand-over vacant possession within thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice; that such notice could not be assailed; that the suit itself was misconceived, because two different causes of action in respect of the Appellants 1 and 2 had been joined and a single suit had been filed; that since eviction was sought to be made under the above said Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit in respect of the eviction of the Appellants stood ousted and that therefore, the suit should be dismissed. It was also contended that, even if it was assumed that the trial Court was having jurisdiction to entertain the suit the Appellants/Plaintiffs, having committed default in payment of instalments and continued to be defaulters, were not entitled to the discretionary releif of injunction.
4. Based on the rival pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed as many as three issues. At the conclusion of trial, on appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable, but, the Appellants/Plaintiffs, who were proved to be chronic defaulters leading to cancellation of the allotment orders, were not entitled to the relief of injunction. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, by judgment and decree, dated 28.2.2007.
5. Aggrieved by and challenging the same, the Appellants herein/Plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 63 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, by a judgment, dated 19.12.2008. By the said judgment, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, dismissing the suit filed by the Appellants herein/Plaintiffs. The present Second Appeal is filed against the said judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, confirming the decree passed by the trial Court.
6. The following questions have been formulated by the Appellants and incorporated in the Grounds of Appeal as substantial questions of law:
1. The first substantial question of law that arises for consideration is that whether a notice without giving six months time as per the Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act granting three months time in eviction in the case of lessor and lessee is legally valid or not?
2. The second substantial question of law that arises for consideration is that whether the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is correct in holding that the declarative suit alone is maintainable instead of suit for permanent injunction as much as when the relief are as regards to non-compliance in issuing the notice as per the Transfer of Property Act?
3. The third substantial question of law that arises for consideration is that whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit as and when the Plaintiff has made out a strong foundation as regards to his entitlement for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of eviction?
4. The fourth substantial question of law that arises for consideration is that whether as and when the Courts below come to a conclusion that the matter is pertaining to lesser and lessee under the Transfer of Property Act and holding that the time stipulation mentioned in the notice is valid, contrary to the Act is correct or not?
7. But, upon hearing the submissions made by Mr. S. Palanivelayutham, learned Counsel for the Appellants and after perusing the judgments of the Courts below and also the Grounds of Appeal, this Court is of the considered view that none of the questions formulated in the Grounds of Appeal is a substantial question of law. The reasons are as follows:
Though four questions of law have been sought to be projected as substantial questions of law, the crux of the contention is that the relationship between the Appellants and the SIDCO authorities was one of lessee-lessor and for terminating the lease, which was admittedly for an industrial purpose, as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, six months notice ought to have been given, whereas, the termination notice issued by the second Respondent herein calling upon the Appellants to vacate and deliver vacant possession prescribes only thirty days time for doing so and that therefore, the said notice is legally ineffective and no eviction proceedings could be legitimately initiated based on the said notice.
First of all, the above said contention has been raised on a misconception that the relationship is purely a lessor-lessee relationship. On the other hand, the relationship was created by a document of allotment of the industrial sheds to the Plaintiffs, on condition that on completion of payment of the instalments, the shed along with the land would be conveyed to the allottees. The allotment order itself recites the right of SIDCO to cancel the allotment, in case of default in payment of any instalments, of course, after issuing show cause notice. In fact, such show-cause notice were issued not once, but twice. At the first instance, the Plaintiffs avoided cancellation by making some payment. But, at the second instance, they did not make payment of the defaulted instalments with interest. They also failed to issue any reply showing cause against the proposed cancellation. Therefore, the allotment was duly cancelled by the second Respondent.
8. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has put forward a weak argument that the relationship in accordance with the allotment order ceased to exist after cancellation of allotment and thereafter, the further relationship should be construed to be purely a lessor-lessee relationship. This Court is not in a position to accept the above said contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, because, on the termination of the allotment itself, the lease agreement which is also coupled with the obligation on the part of the SIDCO to convey the property to the Appellants, provided all the instalments are paid, also came to an end. Therefore, the Appellants would be construed to be unauthorised occupants of the public premises and not in any other capacity. Therefore, the proceedings sought to be initiated under the above said Act is perfectly in order. Section 4 of the said Act envisages only a notice to quit giving a time of not less than ten days for vacating. In this case, the Appellants were given thirty days time. Therefore, it is clear that the notice to quit was issued perfectly in accordance with the Section 4 of the said above said Act. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act being a provision in the special enactment shall take precedence over Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is a general Act. Therefore, the relief sought for by the Appellants relying on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has got to be discountenanced. For the above said reason alone, this Court has to come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the Second Appeal; that no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal and that the Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
9. In addition to the above said deliberations, this Court wants to point out yet another aspect which will go against the Appellants and even make the suit not maintainable. Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, provides a bar to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of eviction of any person, who is in occupation of any unauthorised public premises. For better appreciation, the above said section is reproduced hereunder:
15. Bar of jurisdiction: No Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or the recovery of the arrears of rent payable under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 or the damages payable under Sub-section (2) of that Section or the costs awarded to the Government or the corporate authority under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 or any portion of such rent, damages or costs.
10. Despite such a clear provision in the Act, somehow or the other, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable. A correct interpretation of the said provision will make it clear that the suit filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs to preempt the authorities from taking proceedings under the above said Act is clearly barred by the said provision. On that account also, the Appellants are bound to fail.
11. For all the reasons stated above, the second appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.
