The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adherence to procedural requirements, particularly regarding notice, renewal application, and the jurisdiction of the civil court in cases related to the Public Premises Act.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the original plaintiff animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 27.04.2009 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2009 by the Subordinate Judge of Tambaram, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif at Alandur in O.S.No.69 of 2003. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. The merits relating to the factual matrix as stood exposited from the records could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following relief:

- To direct the defendant to restore the possession of the TWO PARTS OF THE LANDS ON LONG TERM LEASE to the plaintiff in St.Thomas Mount and Pallavaram Cantonment.

(extracted as such)

(b) The written statement was filed by the defendant resisting the suit.

(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues.

(d) The plaintiff-R.Ekambaram examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the defendant, one Mr.M.M.Basha was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

(e) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit as against which appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

3. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed on various grounds inter alia to the effect that no notice was given as contemplated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and more specifically under Section 4 of the said Act and no proper enquiry also was conducted. However, the defendant was removed from the land concerned, despite his prayer for renewal of the lease.

4. Suggesting the following substantial questions of law, this appeal has been filed by the appellant in person:

"(1) Whether the Respondent can proceed the Eviction without issuing Notice? & without publishing in the News paper?

(2) Whether the Respondent can proceed the Eviction without disposing the Renewal Application called for by him?

(3) Whether is it fatal to the case of the Respondent, since he failed to produce any PROOF OF SERVICE to any court so far?

(4) Whether is it contrary to law, since the Respondent fail to give opportunity for showing cause against the proposed Eviction?

(5) Whether the Respondent can submit the false statement to the Court that the petitioner have given undertaking letter that the petitioner will hand over the possession of the lands to the Respondent required for the Army use?

(6) Whether the Courts below can granted Natural Justice, since they fail to observe the High Court Judgment dated 16.12.99 mad in W.P.No.76/99 & WMP No.92/99 that the petitioner was not provided any Notice by the Respondent?

(extracted as such)

5. Heard both sides.

6. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered view that the following substantial questions of law do arise in this case:

(1) Whether the Courts below were justified in placing reliance on the averments made on the defendant's side that the entire records relating to the eviction proceedings were filed in the writ petition even though the records were not filed before the Civil Court and marked?

(2) Whether the Courts below were justified in placing reliance on the judgment dated 26.02.2002 in W.P.No.76 of 1999 and dismissing the suit?

(3) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below?

7. These substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as they are inter linked and inter woven with one another.

8. I fumigate my mind with the following decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 1 SCC 673 [Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi], certain excerpts from it would run thus:

"19. It is manifest from a bare reading of the section that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the