THOMAS JACOB vs G.Anser Badsha
- Court
- Madras High Court
SA No. 924 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
SA No. 924 of 2026
and
CMP.No.29334 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011387522026}
1. Thomas Jacob
S/o. Late Jacob, No.4/229, Plot No.79,
Jeevan Prakash Nagar, Sennerrkuppam,
Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. G.Anser Badsha
S/o. Dawood Badsha, New No.17, Old
No.7, Pooram Prakash Road,
Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prays to
set aside the judgment and Decree dated 07.11.2025 made in AS.No.15 of 2022
on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee, confirming the judgment
and decree dated 11.02.2022 made in O.S.No.435 of 2014 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif at Poonamallee.
For Appellant(s): T.Balaji
For Respondent(s): R.Karthikeyan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:19 pm )
SA No. 924 of 2026
JUDGEMENT
The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the decree and judgment
dated 07.11.2025 made in AS.No.15 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge at Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2022
made in O.S.No.435 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at
Poonamallee.
2 . For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they
were ranked in the suit.
3. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the
defendant / appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff/respondent filed O.S. No. 435 of
2014, seeking recovery of possession of the suit property. The plaintiff
contended that the defendant had been inducted as a tenant in the year 2005 on a
monthly rent of Rs.250/- and had subsequently committed default. The plaintiff
further stated that, upon returning to India in the year 2011, he requested the
defendant to vacate the premises. However, the defendant refused to vacate the
same and issued a letter in that regard. In the meantime, the defendant had filed
O.S. No. 156 of 2011 against the plaintiff/landlord, seeking an injunction
restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his possession except through due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:19 pm )
SA No. 924 of 2026
process of law. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking eviction and
recovery of possession.
5. Both parties contested the suits, and the matters were tried jointly.
Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that
the plaintiff/landlord was entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the suit in
O.S. No. 435 of 2014 was decreed, directing the defendant to deliver vacant
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The connected suit was also
disposed of. Challenging the said findings, the defendant preferred an appeal
before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal,
thereby confirming the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent
findings of the Courts below, the defendant has preferred the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that,
although the tenancy between the parties was admitted, the plaintiff had not
issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before
instituting the suit. He further contended that the Courts below had failed to
consider the said legal objection and had erroneously granted the relief of
recovery of possession. On that ground, the learned counsel sought interference
with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:19 pm )
SA No. 924 of 2026
7. Upon considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is
evident that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties,
commencing from the year 2005, is admitted. The monthly rent was fixed at
Rs.250/- for the premises comprising an extent of more than 4,000 square feet.
It is also evident from the records that, as early as in the year 2011, the appellant
had sought time to vacate the premises but had failed to do so. In such
circumstances, the Courts below were justified in granting the relief of recovery
of possession to the plaintiff. This Court finds no valid ground to interfere with
the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
8. However, considering the fact that the appellant is aged about 67 years
and has been residing in the premises with his family members and
grandchildren for several decades, this Court is inclined to grant him three
months' time to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to the
respondent/landlord.
9. Accordingly, the Second appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel
brought to the notice of this Court that a letter dated 27.10.2026 had been
obtained from the appellant by the respondent/landlord today,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:19 pm )
SA No. 924 of 2026
the appellant had undertaken to vacate the premises and deliver possession
within 15 days. However, in view of the three months' time granted by this
Court, the operation of the said undertaking, insofar as the period for vacating
the premises is concerned, shall remain in abeyance during the period granted
by this Court.
27-10-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
rri
Note: Issue order copy today (i.e., 27.10.2026)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:19 pm )
SA No. 924 of 2026
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Poonamallee.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:19 pm )
SA No. 924 of 2026
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
rri
SA No. 924 of 2026
27-10-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:19 pm )