M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

The defendant, who had lost before the Courts below, are the appellant herein.

2. The respondent/plaintiff/Temple filed a suit in O.S. No. 1513 of 2001 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against the appellant/defendant, praying for the relief of delivery of vacant possession of the 'B' Schedule property ad-measuring to an extent of 1020 sq.ft situated in Door No. 25, Chinnakuzhanthai Street, Maduma Nagar, Sembium, Perambur, Chennai-600011.

3. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff/temple that the temple is coming within the purview of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act and it is administered by one Thirupanalwar Sabbai and the temple is in existence from time immemorial and land belonged to the temple, was purchased through a registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.1933, registered as Doc. No. 1722/33, in the name of Kannabiran temple and the adjacent land was purchased in the name of the Trustees of the Thirupanalwar Sabbai, through a registered Sale Deed dated 14.07.1959, (Ex.A1). The respondent/plaintiff/temple would further aver that five Trustees representing the said Sabbai were administering the temple during their lifetime and after their demise, one of the legal heirs of the trustee M. Jayaraman, was administering the temple as a Trustee. The temple was renovated and reconstructed by the Thirupanalwar Society and pooja's are conducted for the Deity "Lord Krishna". It is further stated by the respondent/plaintiff/temple that in the schedule mentioned property, three tenants are occupying different portions of the temple and the appellant/defendant is occupying a Thatched Shed measuring 25x12 sq.ft. ('B' schedule property) and it was let out to him by Thirupanalwar Sabai on the basis of his request and demand made vide his letter dated 01.07.1988 (Ex.A2) and vide Agreement/letter dated 24.10.1989 ('B' Schedule property) was let out in his favour (Ex.A3), on monthly rent of Rs. 35/- and the said rent was paid by him upto January 1996 and thereafter, he has failed to pay the ground rent in spite of repeated demands. The respondent/plaintiff/temple would further aver that the defendant has also extended a portion in his occupation without any authority, unauthorizedly and highhandedly and as a result, the devotees found it extremely difficult for "Pragaram" (Walking space around the temple) as there was no passage and on account of blocking of the passage, repeated request made by the respondent/plaintiff/temple to remove the encroachment was not considered. The appellant/defendant is due and liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2030/- as arrears of ground rent and a Legal Notice dated 29.09.2000 (Ex.A4) was issued to the appellant/defendant calling upon him to vacate and deliver the possession of the 'B' Schedule property and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has also been offered as a compensation in respect of the Thatched shed put up by him. Though, the appellant/defendant acknowledged the receipt of said notice, failed to send any reply nor complied with the terms of the said notice by delivering the possession of the "B" Schedule property and therefore, the above said suit was filed.

4. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement denying the averments/allegations made in the plaint and would contend that M. Jayaraman is not the Heridatary Trustee and also the temple is also not under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment and denied the suggestion that the adjacent land was purchased by Thirupanalwar Sabbai under Ex.A1 dated 14.07.1999. The appellant/defendant would further contend that the rough sketch attached to the plaint does not contain correct description and in the absence of authenticated revenue records, rough sketch cannot be relied upon. The appellant/defendant also took a stand that there is absolutely no relationship between the temple's property with the defendant and the Agreement (Ex.A3) dated 24.10.1989 is a fabricated one and th