Appeal filed by third defendant who has no right to file appeal not maintained.

1. Third defendant in O.S.No.5514 of 1991, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant.

2. Suit filed by the Sri Vedantha Desikar Devasthanam represented by its Trustees was one for recovery of possession of the schedule property from the defendant.

3. The material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows:

It is alleged that the plaintiff-Temple is the owner of the schedule property and first defendant was the tenant in respect of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.120 per mensem. He was not regular in paying the rent, and has not paid rent from February, 1989. Arrears of rent alone come to Rs.3,480 upto June, 1991. It is said that the first defendant has sub-let the premises to defendants 2 and 3 unauthorisedly without consent. It is further said that the first defendant has also denied title of the plaintiff over the superstructure by indulging in filing a suit in O.S.No.8559 of 1988, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. In that suit, the present plaintiff was also impleaded as a party, and the prayer was for possession against defendants 2 and 3. Since there is default in payment of rent and there is also unauthorised sub-lease and denial of title, plaintiff thought of terminating the tenancy and, therefore, a quit notice was issued on 6.6.1991. After receipt of notice, third defendant sent a reply raising false contentions. The suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of possession and also for recovery of arrears of rent. Plaintiff has reserved its right to take separate proceedings for recovery of damages for use and occupation from 1.7.1991 onwards. It is further said that since the plaintiff is a Public Charitable Institution, it is exempted from the provisions of Rent Control Act as per G.O.No.2000, dated 16.8.1976.

4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he took the contention that the original rent was Rs.65, thereafter it was increased from time to time, and finally, it came to Rs.120. It is further said that with permission of the plaintiff, constructions were put up in the property and, therefore, the constructions absolutely belong to him, and not to the plain-tiff-Devasthanam. He has further said that he has obtained electric connection at his cost and is paying consumption Charges. Since he has put up the superstructure, he is entitled to the protection under Sec.9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, and is entitled to purchase the property. He also prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Third defendant, appellant herein, in his written statement, contended that he is not admitting the allegations in the plaint in regard to relation between him and the first defendant. It is said that the second defendant is a direct nephew of the first defendant, and both of them were originally enjoying the property. They were also doing some business, and when the business ended in a loss, the same was taken over by third defendant, and he is paying monthly rent to them. He said that he is an authorised statutory tenant. According to him, when the right in regard to the superstructure is in dispute, the suit filed must be one for declaration of title, and since such a suit has not been filed, the present suit is not maintainable. It is further contended that the allegation that he cannot claim any independent right is false. According to him, he is a statutory tenant, entitled to the benefits of the Rent Control Act. He prayed for dismissal of the suit as against him.

6. While narrating the above facts, I have made reference to the suit filed by first defendant as O.S.No.8559 of 1988. That was a suit for recovery of possession from defendants 2 to 4 therein. The present plaintiff was also made as first defendant in that suit only for the purpose of entering a finding as to whether first defendant is entitled to the benefits of City Tenants Protection Act and whether the construction was made by him or not. The claim for recovery of possession was confined