S. Nagamuthu, J.

The defendant in O.S. No. 2736 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The said suit was filed for recovery of the suit premises from the defendant and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from carrying out any work in the suit property. By decree and judgment dated 06.12.2012, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on or before 06.02.2013. The trial court also granted a decree for permanent inunction restraining the defendant from carrying out any work in the suit premises. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.137 of 2013 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first appellate court, by decree and judgment dated 15.09.2014, dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. That is how, the defendant/appellant herein is now before this court with this second appeal.

2. This second appeal has come up today for admission. The respondent has made appearance through its counsel.

3. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff is a Society registered under The Societies Registration Act, 1860. The suit premises and building bearing Old No. 18, New No. 39, Venkatachala Chetty Street, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005, is owned by the plaintiff. The defendant is the tenant of the said premises under the plaintiff. Initially, the monthly rent was Rs. 1,500/- up to April 1995 and subsequently it was increased to Rs. 2,000/- per month from 01.05.1995 onwards. Though the defendant agreed to pay the rent as increased without fail, the defendant committed default. The defendant, thereafter, however, filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.1965 of 1995 under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the Rent Controller, Chennai, for depositing the rent. The said petition was contested by the plaintiff herein and ultimately, the same was dismissed on 27.11.1997. Thereafter, the defendant approached the plaintiff and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards rent. This undertaking was given by means of a letter dated 05.12.1997. He also gave a Demand Draft for Rs. 62,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Triplicane Branch, Chennai, as against the arrears of rent for the period between May 1995 and November 1997.

Thus, up to November, 1997, the defendant has paid rent. Thereafter, the defendant has failed to pay the rent.

5. In those circumstances, the plaintiff issued a notice on 24.04.2002 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating the lease and calling upon the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the property on the expiry of the specified period.

But, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises in pursuance of the said notice. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession. It was also contended in the plaint itself that though the building in question is situated in the Chennai City limits, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, are not applicable in view of the exemption given under G.O.Ms. No. 2000 Home Department, dated 16.08.1976. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the suit was maintainable and he was entitled for the relief sought for. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant was likely to make some alterations in the buildings in question and, therefore, injunction was also sought for.

6. In the written statement, the defendant questioned the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit. According to him, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the suit is not maintainable as there is a clear