67-Year-Old Tenant Gets 3 Months To Vacate As Madras HC Upholds Landlord’s Possession Decree

The plaintiff sued to recover possession of premises, alleging that the defendant had been inducted as a tenant in 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.250 and had refused to vacate after being asked to do so in 2011.

The defendant had separately sued for an injunction against interference with his possession except by due process of law. The suits were tried jointly; the trial court decreed possession for the plaintiff, and the first appellate court affirmed that decree. The defendant then filed this second appeal.

The appeal was brought under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs second appeals.

The appellant invoked Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, arguing that notice was required before instituting the suit. The judgment does not set out the text of either provision, cite precedent, or expressly formulate a rule on when notice under Section 106 is required.

The Court noted that the tenancy relationship was admitted, the rent was Rs.250 per month, and the appellant had sought time to vacate in 2011 but had not done so.

On those facts, it upheld the lower courts’ decision to order recovery of possession and found no valid ground to disturb their concurrent findings. Although the appellant’s Section 106 objection was recorded, the Court did not separately analyse whether notice was legally necessary or explain why the objection failed.

It granted the appellant three months to vacate and deliver vacant possession, taking account of his age and family circumstances. A written undertaking obtained on the day of hearing to vacate within 15 days was to remain in abeyance insofar as the time for vacating was concerned during the three-month period granted by the Court.