Requirement for issuance of notice u/s 106 of the Act not necessary.

Common Judgment:

The appellant in both the appeals are the defendant in O.S.Nos.2261 and 2269 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. The defendant are the tenants and lost their cases in both the Courts below.

2. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suits.

3. The plaintiff filed both the suits seeking relief of possession, arrears of rent and for future damages. The suit properties in both the suits are wooden bunks bearing Door Nos.75 and 76 respectively with all the fittings and appurtenances situated in Anupparpalayam Pillaiyar and Mariamman Temple compound in front of the Pillaiyar Temple.

4. The case of the plaintiff as set out in both the plaints are as follows:- The plaintiff is the owner of the suit properties. The defendant in both the suits were given licence to run petty shops by placing wooden boxes in the suit properties in the year 1980 and the licence fee for the suit properties are Rs.35/- each per month. Since the defendant in both the suits had taken a stand that they are only lessees and not licensees in the exchange of notices, the defendant in both the suits are treated as tenants and the transaction as lease. The tenancy month is from the first to the end of English calendar month and right from beginning, there were objections from the public and the devotees for running the petty shops in front of the temple. Petitions were also sent to the temple authorities. The defendant in both the suits are irregular in payment of rent. Further the shops in both the suits are required for the plaintiff. The defendant in both the suits fell in arrears of rent from July 1988 to September, 1988 at Rs.105/- each. Notices were issued on 14.7.1988 revoking the licence given to the defendant in both the suits. Since the plaintiff is temple and is exempted from the purview of the Rent Control Act, both the suits are filed seeking the above said reliefs.

5. Both the suits are resisted in the written statements filed separately admitting the tenancy and the quantum of rent of Rs.35/- per month for each shop. The defendant in both the suits also paid advance of Rs.210/- for each shop and became tenants of the suit properties as per the lease agreements dated 12.2.1980 on a monthly rent of Rs.35/- each payable on the 16th day of every English calendar month. Vacant sites measuring 8 feet x 6 feet each were leased to the defendant, in which the defendant in both the suits put up two wooden petty shops by spending Rs.10,000/- each. Electricity service connection had also been obtained as per permission granted by the plaintiff. Both shops were also assessed by the Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore City. Though the lease period was for one year from 15.2.1980 to 14.2.1981 in respect of both the shops, the defendant in both the suits continued even thereafter. The plaintiff, as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, demanded enhanced rent and refused to receive the rent from 16.6.1987 onwards in respect of the shop No.75 relating to O.S.No.2261 of 1988 and from 16.7.1987 onwards in respect of the shop No.76 relating to suit O.S.No.2269 of 1988. The defendant in both the suits sent money orders on 9.7.1988 for a sum of Rs.420/- in respect of each shops for the period from June, 1987 to upto date in respect of shop No.75 and from 16.7.1987 to 16.6.1988 in respect of shop No.76 and also caused lawyer notices dated 11.7.1988. The money orders and the notices have been received by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent notices dated 14.7.1988 which were suitably replied on 21.7.1988. Thereafter, the plaintiff received rent upto May, 1988 in respect of the shop No.75 and upto June, 1988 in respect of the shop No.76 and thereafter, the plaintiff refused to receive the rent and the rent sent through money orders for the months of June and July 1988 in respect of the shop No.75 and July, 1988 in respect of the shop No.76 were refused.

6.