Provisions of Rent Control Act, 1pplies to the premises.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.1689 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, is the appellant in the above second appeal. He filed the suit for delivery of possession of the suit properties, arrears of rent and for future damages.

2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The suit properties originally belonged to one R.Janardhanan as per the registered partition deed dated 312. 1951. The said Janardhanan sold the suit property to the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 11. 1978 for valuable consideration. The plaintiff thus became the owner of the suit property and she is paying house tax therefor. The previous owner Janardhanan allowed the Uppilipalayam Panchayat to run a school in the suit properties and the panchayat was running a school for some time. After 10 years, the panchayat vacated the school. One Raghava Mannadiar was employed as a watchman-cum-peon in the school run by the panchayat. The said Raghava Mannadiar died about 7 or 8 years ago. When the school vacated the premises, the said Raghava Mannadiar was permitted by Janardhanan to occupy the eastern room of the school premises on a nominal rent. After the death of the said Raghava Mannadiar, defendants 2 to 7 who are his legal heirs are continuing the occupation of the suit premises as tenants. After the purchase, the plaintiff was put in actual possession of the entire premises bearing door No.127 except the portion in the occupation of the defendants. The defendants agreed to vacate the suit premises after finding a suitable occupation and in the meantime, they agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 15 to the plaintiff. Contrary to the said agreement, the defendants have neither vacated nor paid the rent to the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands. The defendants committed wilful default in payment of rent from November, 1978 onwards. The plaintiff intends to demolish a portion of the premises for constructing the same according to her needs. The plaintiff applied to the Singanallur Municipality for licence for this purpose. She informed the defendants to vacate the suit premises. As the defendants evaded the request of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice dated 27. 1979 terminating the tenancy of the defendants with effect from 38. 79 and calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent. The defendants sent a reply dated 8. 79 containing false and untenable grounds. In the reply notice, the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and also his predecessor. It has, therefore, become necessary for the plaintiff to file the suit.

3.. The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 to 7 with the following averments: It is not correct to state that the suit property belonged to one Janardhanan. Janardhanan did not permit anybody to run a school in the suit premises. The Uppilipalayam Panchayat did not run any school and has not vacated the school 10 years ago as alleged. It is equally false to state that one Raghava Mannadiar was employed as a watchman-cum-peon in the said school. He was not in permissive occupation but was in possession of the suit premises in his own right, openly, continuously and to the knowledge of one and all. He had perfected his title by adverse possession. In fact, the said Raghava Mannadiar denied the title of the said Janardhanan. These defendants never promised to vacate the premises at any time. There is no agreement to pay any rent to the plaintiff. The question of committing wilful default in payment of rent does not arise. The notice to quit is invalid and improper. The plaintiff is not entitled to delivery of possession of the suit premises from the defendants. The court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. With these averments, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. In support of the plaintiff’s case, she has examined one Palanisamy as P.W.I and Jagannathan as P.W.2. She produced and marked Exs.A-1 to A-17 in support of her case. On the other