Jurisdiction of Rent Control Court is not ousted.

The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P. No.25 of 1987, on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore).

2. The respondent filed the eviction petition against the present petitioner on the ground that she requires the building for her own occupation, and also on the ground that the tenant has defaulted in paying the rent at the rate of Rs.80 per mensem, and the arrears of rent upto September, 1987 was Rs.560. On the grounds of requirement of the buildings for demolition and reconstruction and denial of title also, the respondent (landlady), wanted eviction of the tenant.

3. The material facts alleged in the petition are, the land in which the scheduled premises situated belongs to Arulmigu Rajagopalaswami Temple. The temple executed a lease in respect of the land to one Veerappan Asari, and the lessee put up a superstructure therein. The lessee bequeathed his leasehold right in favour of his grandson Selvaraju Asari. The petitioner herein was a tenant under Veerappan Asari, and, after his death, the tenancy was attorned in favour of his grandson. It is stated that the rental arrangement is in respect of the built-up portion only and not in respect of the vacant site. Selvaraju Asari executed a sale deed on 22. 1987 in favour of the respondent, and immediately thereafter, the fact of sale was informed to the petitioner. In spite of the same, the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent as O.S. No.275 of 1987, on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Cuddalore, for an ‘injunction on the ground that the respondent, is attempting to dispossess him. The respondent, therefore, issued a notice on 14. 1987 calling upon him to vacate the property. The petitioner sent an evasive reply, questioning the sale deed and also denying the title. After the same the respondent has not received any amount towards rent. It is also said that the respondent is occupying a rented premises for the purpose of her business, and the scheduled premises is bona fide required for her own occupation.

4. In the counter filed by the petitioner, it is admitted that the land belonged to the temple and Veerappan Asari was the lessee of the vacant site. It is also admitted by him that Veerappan Asari constructed a building therein, and even the vacant site and the backyard are in his possession. It is also stated that there was no prohibition for subletting. It is further contended that after the death of Veerappan Asari, he was paying rent to Selvaraju and he was paying municipal tax and other taxes. The temple was well aware about the sub-lease in favour of the petitioner and he is entitled to the benefit of the Rent Control Act. It is further contended that the right of Selvaraju was terminated by the temple by notice dated 10. 1985, and immediately thereafter, the petitioner applied to the temple to permit him to pay the rent and to recognise him as the lessee. The petitioner produced all the records to show his possession. It is further stated that since Selvaraju committed default in paying the rent and since he was not in possession of the property, the sale deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner is also invalid. It is further contended that till the right of the petitioner is recognised, he should continue to pay the rent to Selvaraju and, believing the words of the Executive Officer, the petitioner was paying the rent, and there is no arrears of rent, and the entire amount has been paid to Selvaraju. All’ of a sudden, Selvaraju pressed the petitioner to vacate the building and, therefore, he was compelled to file the suit before the District Munsif’s Court, Cuddalore, as O.S. No.275 of 1987. It is further contended that Selvaraju has no right to terminate the lease, particularly, when he is not in actual possession of the property. It is stated that the alleged superstructure over the vacant site, by fiction of law, has become the property of the temple, and as such, the said Selvaraju has