A suit for recovery of possession is not maintainable without a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice requirement is mandatory, and the existence of a valid lease is a condition precedent for its applicability.

1. The Appellant/Defendant have preferred this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.06.2005, in A.S.No. 167 of 2004 passed by the Learned 3rd Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, in affirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.04.2004, in O.S.No. 526 of 1995, passed by the Learned Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai.

The Plaint averments:

2. According to the Respondent/Plaintiff, its a Muslim Public Religious and Charitable Trust. Many persons have endowed the properties to the Trust. The properties belonging to the Respondent /Plaintiff, including the suit scheduled property bearing S.No. 90/1 has been surveyed by the Commissioner of Wakfs as per Section 4(3) of the Wakf Act.

3. The Government of Tamil Nadu has forwarded the said survey report to the State of Wakf Board and the Board published the Respondent/Plaintiff's Trust in Official Gazette, dated 27.05.1969 in serial No. 98 and 115 of the Gazette. As per Section 6 of the Wakf Act, the character and nature of Wakf has become final and conclusive. The Respondent/Plaintiff's Trust is functioning under the General Supervision of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The Trust is also paying contribution to the Wakf Board, as per Wakf Act.

4. The Respondent/Plaintiff/Trust has created for the purpose of commorating the memory of Saint Mohaideen Abdul Khader Jolani for performing certain functions on the eleventh day of every month, performing Santhanakoodu every year free feeding to poor on the Ramjan days, conducting Moulooth and Kandoories in the month of Rabiyi Avval in the name of Prophet Mohammad and in the month of Rabiyul Akeer in the name of Saint Mohideen Abdul Khader Jilani and running Arabic School and other functions mentioned under the byelaws of the Trust.

5. The First Appellant/First Defendant has taken the Door No. 84 from the Respondent/Plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- and Door No. 84 A on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- as per English Calender month. For the rents paid by the First Appellant/First Defendant printed receipts have been issued to the First Appellant/First Defendant. The First Appellant/First Defendant is occupying the suit property as a tenant under the Respondent/Plaintiff. At the time of vacating the suit property, the First Appellant/First Defendant has to surrender whatever improvements made to the suit property to the Respondent/Plaintiff's Trust after removing the super structure. The First Appellant/First Defendant has paid the rent till February 1995 to the Respondent /Plaintiff and obtained the receipts on 11.03.1995.

6. The First Appellant/First Defendant has not paid the rent beginning from March 1995 till date. She has also vacated the suit property and has not surrendered the suit property to the Respondent/Plaintiff.

7. In law, the First Appellant/First Defendant is to handover vacant possession to the Respondent/Plaintiff when the First Appellant/First Defendant has illegally and unauthorisedly and even without the written consent of the Plaintiff/Trust transferred and handed over the possession of the suit property to the Second Appellant/Second Defendant. The occupation of the Second Appellant/Second Defendant in the suit property is neither legal nor proper. Also, it is not binding on the Respondent/Plaintiff.

8. There is no privity of contract between the Respondent/Plaintiff and the Second Appellant/Second Defendant. The Second Appellant/Second Defendant never obtained any written permission from the Respondent/Plaintiff to take any lease hold right over the suit property. By the conduct of the First Appellant/First Defendant in allowing the Second Appellant/Second Defendant to occupy illegally and unauthorisedly the suit property, the Respondent/Plaintiff's Trust has been put to irreparable loss. The Second Appellant/Second Defendant has no right in law to put up the construction in the property of the Respondent/Plaintiff. The Office bearers of the Respondent/Plaintiff went to the spot and prevented t