1. The plaintiff is the lessee of the suit property. The defendant, who is the owner of the suit property, had leased out the property to the plaintiff's father-Murugesa Naicker in the year 1936. Since then, it is claimed that, both the plaintiff and his father has been paying the kist receipts to the competent authorities. But, subsequently, when the temple authorities with malafide intention refused to receive the lease amount, the plaintiff, by apprehending some unlawful action from the hands of the defendant, filed a suit in O.S.No.2248 of 1996 before the Vth Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its employees, servants, workmen and agents in any manner interfering and disturbing and evicting the plaintiff from the property bearing Survey No.104/6, in a total extent of 16 cents in Thiruvanmiyur Village, Mylaore, Triplicane Taluk.

2. Opposing the said claim, a detailed written statement was filed by the defendant, taking a specific stand that the suit was not maintainable, as no notice was issued under Section 80 CPC to the defendant-Executive Officer. Further, the plaintiff also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2357 of 1996 on the very same cause of action and the same was also pending, therefore, for the same cause action, when the writ was pending, no suit was maintainable.

3. Under these circumstances, the trial Court framed the following issues, after examining P.W.1 and marking Exs.A1 to A6, on the side of the plaintiff, as well as by examining D.W.1 and marking Exs.B1 to B7, on the side defendant.

“i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for?

ii. Is it correct that the suit is not maintainable?”

4. After framing the above issue, the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed the by the plaintiff, by holding that when it is accepted by the plaintiff himself that the defendant is the real owner of the suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for against the true owner and to that effect, a judgment passed by this Court in SaraswatiAmmal v. Viveka Primary School (AIR 2001 Mad 417) was cited. In respect of the second issue, it was held that, in the absence of pre suit notice under Section 80 of CPC, the suit was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, when an appeal was filed, learned first appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

5. This Court, at the time of entertaining the second appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law:-

"i. Whether the lease revived after withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings?

ii. Whether statutory notice under Section 80 CPC is mandatory before the suit against the respondent?

iii. Whether the lower Courts failed to consider that the respondent without resorting to any legal remedy, can interfere with the physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property?"

6. Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below erroneously by disbelieving the plea of maintainability of the suit, for not issuing the pre suit notice under Section 80 of CPC, dismissed the suit refusing to decree a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. When the plaintiff all along has approached the trial Court, complaining the unlawful interference from the defendant, the trail court has wrongly dismissed the suit, especially when the appellant is a statutory tenant entitled to the protection under the Tenancy Law. He further contended that the plaintiff need not issue a pre notice under Section 80 of CPC, before filing a suit for permanent injunction, since the Executive Officer of the Temple is not a State.

7. In respect of his submission that no notice under Section 80 of CPC is necessary before filing the suit, he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in T. Kasinathanv. Special Officer, Sri Petharanaswamy, Pondicherr