1. Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Thirukovil Temple at Kancheepuram, who is the petitioner in unnumbered I.A. of 2006 in O.S.No.719 of 1990 is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the docket order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram, dated 08.03.2007.

2.The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.719 of 1990, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, against Lakshmiammal and others, who are the respondents 4 to 10 in this civil revision petition, directing the defendants to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the suit schedule mentioned property, after removal of the superstructure and directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,260/- being the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the suit property to the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiffs further states that the suit schedule property is absolutely belongs to the plaintiff Padmasaliar community at Kancheepuram. The plaintiffs are the trustees of the trust. The property is being managed by the plaintiff's trust consisting of two sects viz. Bojja and Pandari as trustees. This trust is called Padmasaliar community Trust, Kancheepuram. The respondents 4 to 10 are the legal heirs of one deceased Vajjiravelu mudaliar and they are the lessees of the suit schedule of property.

4. The petitioners also come forward by saying that the said Vajjiravelu Mudaliar was a lessee of the suit property, inducted into possession of the property 3 years ago by the plaintiff community, on the basis of monthly tenancy and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.35/- per month. The said tenancy is oral and as per English calendar month and the said Vajjiravelu Mudaliar died and the respondents 4 to 10 were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased in the suit.

5. The petitioner further states that earlier the suit was filed before the learned District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram in O.S.No.203 of 1973 by Bojja Section on 16.12.1972 and for possession of the suit property on the basis of a registered lease deed dated 19.02.1962 to set aside the lease granted by Pandari Sect to Vajjiravel Mudaliar, on 16.12.1972 and for possession of the suit property, from the defendant' s father. Both the documents were marked as Exhibits A2 and A4 in that suit and thereafter, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, in the Appellate Court in A.S.No.213 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Kancheepuram, the suit was decreed, but in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1360 of 1982 the suit again dismissed by this Court.

6. Due to the above said dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs were determined the tenancy ending with the year of the tenancy viz. 31.12.1989 and calling upon the defendants, who are the respondents 4 to 10 to surrender the possession of the property on 01.01.1990 and six months notice has been given by way of abundant caution as the defendants are running Iron fabrication works in the suit property and as per the agreement dated 19.02.1962 the 1st defendant alone issued a reply notice dated 24.02.1989 containing false allegations, which are denied by the plaintiffs and others did not reply to the said notice. Therefore, the defendants in the suit have not vacated and surrender the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

7. On receipt of the summon, the defendants in the suit, who are the respondents 4 to 10 herein are filed their written statement denying the entire allegations and stated that the suit itself is not maintainable either in law and facts.

8. The respondents 4 to 10 who are the defendants in the suit are admitted in the plaint in para 4 and 5 that the deceased Vajjiravel Mudaliar and after his death being the legal heirs of the deceased Vajiravel, these defendants are the tenants of the suit property and these defendants have been paid the rents regularly, but the plaintiffs, who are the respondents 1 to 10, who are refused to receive the rent.

9. The purpose and intention of letting