Rental contract reduced in form of a document does not require proof of oral evidence.

Having lost in the both courts below, the first defendant - V. Rangaswamy, since deceased, has filed this Second Appeal seeking to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 100 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 2021 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff - Devasthanam, the first respondent herein, for recovery of possession of the suit premises and for damages.

2. The case of the plaintiff/first respondent herein, is as follows:— The suit property is the absolute property of the plaintiff-Devasthanam. The first defendant became a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- on 1.7.1975. The rent was increased to Rs. 191/- from 1.5.1977. The first defendant contrary to the terms of the tenancy had sublet a portion of the suit premises to the second defendant. The second defendant is running a petty shop therein. Further, the tenamented portion is required by the plaintiff-Devasthanam for renovation of the temple by extending its entrance.

3. On 5.6.1982, the plaintiff issued notice to the defendants 1 and 2 terminating the tenancy and asked them to vacate the suit premises. Despite the receipt of the notice, the defendants did not vacate the premises, but sent a reply with false allegations, hence, the suit for delivery of vacant possession and for payment of damages.

4. The case of the defendants is as follows:—The first defendant became a tenant of the suit premises as per the rental agreement executed on 1.7.1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The first defendant never sub-let the premises unauthorisedly to the second defendant. The second defendant is only an employee working under the first defendant. The petty shop is solemnly owned by the first defendant, consequently, he has not violated the terms and conditions of the tenancy. Requirement of vacant possession of the suit premises for renovation is utter falsehood. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On that basis of these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages at Rs. 191/- per month?

(3) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.I - Subramaniam, Executive Officer was examined as P.W.I. Ex. A. 1, notice dated 5.6.1982 and Ex A. 2 reply notice dated 15.06.1982 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.I, through whom Exs. Bl to B21 were marked. Exs. B. 22 and B. 23 the salary receipts obtained from the second defendant were also marked.

7. After making considered all the materials, the learned District Munsif decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Having aggrieved over the above said judgment, the appellant, the first defendant, preferred the appeal in A.S. No. 100 of 1986 before the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. However, the second defendant had not chosen to prefer any appeal.

8. Before the first Appellate Court, the following questions were framed as the points for consideration.

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the defendants?

(2) whether the sub-letting of a portion of a suit premises by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is true?

(3) whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages?

9. After having heard the counsel for the parties and on analysis of the materials and the reasonings given in the judgment of the trial Court, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, upholding the reasonings and conclusions of the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff.

10. The first defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of bo