AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda
Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner-tenant and learned Counsel for respondent - landlord. Learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that tenancy was not properly terminated. At the first instance, suit was filed in the City Civil Court and the City Civil Court ordered for return of plaint for presentation before the Small Causes Court. The respondent instead of complying with the order of the Court had instituted a fresh suit before the Court of Small Causes. Therefore, there is no proper determination of tenancy.
The tenant has not disputed that notice of termination of tenancy was served on him on 30.3.2010. The suit was filed on 19.12.2007 before the City Civil Court. Subsequently, the same was transferred to the Court of Small Causes on the point of jurisdiction.
Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that there was no proper termination of tenancy and a fresh suit was instituted before the Court of Small Causes cannot be accepted.
The learned Counsel for petitioner-tenant would submit that the landlord should have prima facie established requirement. In my considered opinion, the suit was filed for ejectment under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and therefore, this question does not arise for consideration. In the circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality to invoke the provisions of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed. However, the time granted by the trial Court is extended and the petitioner shall vacate and deliver vacant possession of schedule premises to respondent within two months from the date of this order.