IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT MUNSIF AT TIRUVOTTIYUR

OS. NO. 114 OF 2018

1) A.V. Vignesh
S/o. A.D. Velusamy
2) N. Kiruthika
W/o. A.V. Vignesh
( Both are residing at 36, Pappu Reddy Illam,
Chinnasamy Nagar, 2nd Street, Periya Mathur,
Chennai- 600 058 ….Plaintiffs
Vs
G. Devaraj
S/o. K. Govindasamy
48, Chinnasamy Nagar, 4th Street,
Periyamathur,
Chennai – 600 068 …. Defendant

WRITEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT

The address for service of the Defendant is that of his counsel M/s.
V. Saravanan ,and S.Sivakumar at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Chennai-600 019.

1. The defendant denies all the allegations contained in the plaint except
those that are specifically admitted herein. The plaintiffs are put to strict
proof of other allegations that are not specifically admitted herein.

2. The defendant denies the allegations in Para 3 of the plaint. The 1 st

plaintiff entered into tenancy agreement with the defendant dated
2.5.2017 for running a play school in the ground floor portion of the
property belonging to the defendant. In the said agreement there is no
recital mentioning that the second plaintiff is going to be the
correspondent of the school and is going to be in charge of the school.

3. The defendant denies the allegations in Para 4 of the plaint. The

defendant denies that on 2.5.2017 the 1st rental agreement was entered
into between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant. The agreement dated
2.5.2017 is only agreement and there is no first or second agreement as
mentioned in the plaint. As per the agreement the plaintiff is liable to pay
rent on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The 1st plaintiff paid the
rent up to the month of April 2018 and willfully neglected to pay rent and
damages subsequently. Rental receipts were also issued up to March
2018.
 : 2 :

4. The defendant denies the allegations in para 5 of the plaint. The alledged
management of the school by the 2 nd plaintiff is an unauthorized one and
the defendant has never permitted her to run the school. If the allegation
is true then the 1st plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted for subletting.

5. The defendant denies the allegations in Para 6 of the plaint. This

defendant denies that the plaintiffs have deposited the rent in respect of
the suit property. The 1st plaintiff is squatting on the property without
paying rent and damages from 1.4.2018 on wards.

6. The defendant denies the allegations in Para 7 of the plaint. This

defendant is not aware of the requirements for running a play school.
This defendant is an uneducated person who do not know to read or to
write but only knows to affix his signature in English. The 1 st plaintiff
never discussed anything about the 5 years tenancy and there is no
rental agreement dated 10.7.2017 as alleged by the 1st plaintiff .

7. The defendant denies the allegations in Paras 8 and 9 of the plaint. This
defendant is not aware of the various certificates mentioned in Para 8
and 9 of the plaint.

8. The defendant denies the allegations in Para 10 of the plaint. This

defendant is not aware of the alleged application to the school authorities
by the plaintiff and also return of application by the authorities as
mentioned in Para 10.

9. The defendant denies the allegations in Paras 11and 12 of the plaint.

This defendant denies that the plaintiffs on 16.6.2018 approached the
defendant and requested him to execute and register rental agreement
for 5 years. This defendant did not assured for registering any rental
agreement and the alleged notice filed in the Court was not served on the
defendant. The plaintiff in order to make a false case has chosen to
alleged that he sent notice to the defendant fixing date for registration.
This defendant did not receive any notice dated 04.07.2018. This
defendant never refused to receive any notice.
 : 3 :

10. The defendant denies the allegations in Para 13 of the plaint. This
defendant is not aware of the alleged money invested by the plaintiff and
also the school is the only source of income for his entire family
members. To the knowledge of the defendant there are only few plastic
chairs and tables.

11. The defendant denies the allegations in Para 14 of the plaint. This
defendant denies that on 15.7.2018 the defendant along with some
unknown persons threatened the plaintiff and scolded him by using
filthy language and tried to interfere with his possession. If at all such
an incident happened then the plaintiff should have lodged a complaint
and if it was not received by the police then he should have taken
further steps. The bald allegation that the police did not receive the
complaint will prove that there is no such incident happened and it is
false statement made by the plaintiff in order to make a cause of action
for filing the suit.

12. The defendant denies the allegations in Paras 15 and 16 of the

plaint. The defendant denies that each and every day he threatened the
plaintiff. This defendant is a senior citizen aged about 67 years. Taking
advantage of the defendant’s age and lack of education the plaintiff is
trying to cheat him. The defendant did not have capacity and money
power to engage henchman as mentioned in the plaint. The allegations
are made without any particulars and that itself will prove that they are
false and fabricated. The plaintiff has chosen to make imaginary
allegations in order to obtain an order of injunction.

13. The defendant denies the allegations in Para 17 of the plaint. The
defendant denies that the plaintiff is a statutory tenant. The lease
agreement already expired and the tenancy was terminated by the
defendant and after that the plaintiff cannot be a statutory tenant.

14. The defendant denies the allegations in Para 18 of the plaint. The
cause of action mentioned in Para 18 is not correct and the plaintiff is
put to strict proof about the each and every allegation mentioned therein.
 : 4 :

15. There are no merits in the suit and hence it is liable to be

dismissed with cost

Dated at Thiruvottiyur this the 4th day of February 2019.

Counsel for Defendant Defendant

Verification
I, G.Devaraj the Defendant herein, what are all stated in the above
paragraphs are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated at Thiruvottiyur this the 4th day of February 2019.

Defendant.