1. The Appellants/Defendants 2, 3 and 5 and later, after the death of the First Appellant/Second Defendant 4 to 8 Appellants (who have been brought on record as Legal Representatives of the First Appellant/Second Defendant are the Appellants in S.A.No.635 of 1997, filed against the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court, viz., the Learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.14 of 1993 dated 14/11/1996 in setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Sirkalai in O.S.No.516 of 1980 dated 30/10/1992.

2. The First Appellate Court, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.14 of 1993 filed by the First Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff has inter alia observed that the Defendants are not entitled to claim the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (amended by the Act 3 of 1992) and further observed that the First Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the Defendants and resultantly, allowed the Appeal with costs, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court passed in O.S.No.516 of 1980 dated 30/10/1992. Further, it has also granted two months time to the Defendants to handover possession of the suit property.

3. Earlier, before the trial Court in the main suit in O.S.No.516 of 1980 filed by the First Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff, 1 to 9 issues have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the First Respondent/Plaintiff, witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.16 have been marked. On the side of the Appellants/Defendants, witnesses D.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 have been marked.

4. The trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a consequent conclusion that the suit filed by the First Respondent/Plaintiff in his individual capacity is not maintainable and further, the version of the Defendants that he has taken the suit property on lease for residence is a correct one. That apart, the trial Court has also observed that the notice issued by the First Respondent/Plaintiff to the deceased First Defendant is not proper and valid and has also further held that the Defendant is entitled to get the benefits under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. Moreover, the trial Court has also held that the First Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to get part compensation amount from the Appellants/Defendants and also held that the First Respondent/Plaintiff has not issued notice to the Defendants as per Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and also as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Also, since the First Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the suit in his individual capacity, the suit filed by him is bad and accordingly, passed a decree only to the effect that the First Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to recover a suit part sum of Rs.420/- from the Defendants and further, directed the mesne profits to be decided as per Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure by means of a separate proceedings. In respect of other reliefs, it dismissed the suit without costs.

5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

“1. Whether the suit for Recovery of possession filed by the alleged Trustee in his individual name and not in the name of trust is maintainable in law?

2. Whether the appellants having been found to have taken lease and having been found to have put up constructions thereon by both the Courts below can be said not to be entitled to protection under the City Tenants Protection Act?

3. Whether the suit for recovery of possession without a valid notice prior to the filing of the suit as contemplated in the City Tenants Protection Act is maintainable?”

QUESTION OF LAW No. (1):- It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellants that the First Appellate Court fail