Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue raised in the notice issued by landlord.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subortinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S. No.41 of 1983 dated 37. 1984 in confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram, in

O.S. No.984 of 1979 dated 30.4.1983.

2. The defendant is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed O.S. No.984 of 1979 contending that the suit house belongs absolutely to him, that the defendant had taken the premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.10 payable in every English calendar month, that inasmuch as there were arrears of rent, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.617 of 1975, that in that suit the defendant contended that he was liable to pay only Rs.5 per month as per Tamil calendar month. The trial Court accepted the contention of the defendant and granted a decree for eviction. The defendant filed an appeal before the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, in A.S. No. 177 of 1978 and the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and agreed with the contention of the defendant that the rent was payable only as per Tamil Calendar month. Thereafter the plaintiff had sent lawyers notice to the defendant demanding rent, and claiming arrears of rent and also for possession. However, in the reply of the defendant, he claimed that he was entitled to the protection of the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisan, (Conferment of Ownership of Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called "the Act") and that he was approaching the authority under the Act and as such no further action can be taken by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff contended that the defendant was not entitled to the protection of the said Act and that the defendant was in possession of cultivable lands and therefore, not entitled to get protection of the said Act. Consequently, the plaintiff prayed for eviction of the defendant from the premises and for recovery of possession and also for arrears of rent.

3. The defendant while denying the claims made in the plaint contended that he was regularly paying the rent of Rs.5 per month as per Tamil Calendar month, and that while filing the appeal against the judgment in O.S. No.619 of 1975 he had contended that he was entitled to the benefits of the Act. But the lower appellate Court in A.S. No.177 of 1978 did not discuss anything about the said issue and allowed the appeal on a technical ground. The defendant further submitted that he has preferred an application on 19. 1980 before the Authorised Officer under the Act for appropriate relief and when the plaintiff sent notice to the defendant he had sent a detailed reply on 25. 1979 informing the plaintiff that he was going to institute a proceeding before the Authorised Officer and that inspite of the said reply, the plaintiff had filed the present suit. The defendant further claimed that he has no other house site except the suit property and that he has been in enjoyment and therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of the said Act. Therefore, the relief for recovery of possession as claimed by the plaintiff was not justified.

4. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief as prayed and the granted a decree in favour of the laintiff/respondent herein. On appeal filed by the defendant, the lower appellate Court also agreed with the findings of the trial Court and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is as against this judgment, the present second appeal has been filed.

5. With reference to the findings of the arrears of rent, the said findings being question of fact, I am not inclined to consider any submission made on behalf of the appellant with reference to that issue. The only substantial question of law which is raised and argued before me is as regards the alleged bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as would arise under Section 26 of the Act.

6. Section 26 of the Act