Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
A/m. Aladi Mariamman Temple Rep. by its Hereditary Managing Trustee, A.K.C.Ganesa Thevar - Appellant
Versus
Govindasamy Chettiar & Another - Respondent
S.A. Nos. 773 & 774 of 2005
Decided on : 19-11-2018
For the Appellant :M/s. Aishwarya.S.Nathan for M/s. Srinath Sridevan, Advocates.
Headnote:
Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Tamil Nadu Protection of Tenants Act, 1955 - Tamil Nadu Tenant Protection Act, 1955 - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 - Section 34 - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 - Section 34 - Section 78 – Section 79 – Property – Recovery Of Possession - Plaintiff filed Civil Suits for recovery of possession - Plaintiff is owner of property to an extent of three cents dry land - Property belongs to plaintiff Temple was initially leased to defendants for annual rent of Rs.20 - Defendants were chronic defaulters even in respect of meagre amount of annual rent fixed by plaintiff Temple - On account of fact that defendants failed to pay annual rent as agreed in lease agreement, plaintiff issued a notice to defendants and subsequently filed O.S. before District Munsiff Court, for recovery of possession, damages and past and future profits - Defendants contested suits on ground that they were in possession of Kudiyiruppu Patta in their favour issued by Appellate Authority - In this regard, defendants filed Ex.A4 to establish that they are not produced any documents to establish that they have no right to continue in property belongs to plaintiff - Contrarily, defendants filed Ex.A4 to establish that there was no valid Kudiyiruppu Patta at all – Held, Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court, this Court is of an opinion that defendants had not established fact that they were lawful leaseholders - Defendants had failed to establish that they were promptly paying annual rent as per lease agreement - Defendants had not established that lease between plaintiff Temple and defendants were renewed with reference to Section 34 of “HR & CE” Act - In absence of any such renewal of lease in accordance with law, it is to be construed that defendants are unlawful occupants and therefore, they are liable to be evicted by following procedures as contemplated - It was established before Trial Court that a notice was caused upon defendants for purpose of vacating premises and handed over vacant possession - However, Trial Court proceeded only on ground that defendants were in continuous and long possession of suit schedule property and therefore, their right to continue in suit schedule property is to be protected - Such a proposition adopted by Trail Court as well as by First Appellate Court is not in consonance with established legal principles of law - A lessee cannot be allowed to continue for an unspecified period, which is contrary to lease agreement as well as in violation of provisions of “HR & CE” Act - This being legal principles to be followed, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court has miserably failed to adopt legal principles to be followed in matter of tenancy, more specifically, in respect of properties belong to plaintiff Temple – Appeal Allowed.
1. The present Second Appeals on hand are preferred against the judgments and decrees passed by the Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam in A.S.Nos.31 & 32 of 2004, confirming the judgments and decrees passed by the District Munsiff at Nagapattinam in O.S.Nos.354 & 355 of 2000 dated 19.11.2003.
2. The parties are referred as per the ranking in the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff is the appellant in the present Second Appeals. The plaintiff filed the Civil Suits in O.S.Nos.354 & 355 of 2000 for recovery of possession. The plaintiff is the owner of the property to an extent of three cents dry land in R.S.No.243/17 in No.106, Vaimedu Village, Vedaranyam Taluk. The property belongs to the plaintiff Temple was initially leased to the defendants for the annual rent of Rs.20/-(Rupees Twenty only). The defendants were the chronic defaulters even in respect of the meagre amount of annual rent fixed by the plaintiff Temple. On account of the fact that the defendants failed to pay the annual rent as agreed in the lease agreement, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants and subsequently filed O.S.Nos.354 & 355 of 2000 before the District Munsiff Court, Nagapattinam for recovery of possession, damages and past and future profits.
4. The defendants contested the suits on the ground that they were in possession of Kudiyiruppu Patta in their favour issued by the Appellate Authority. In this regard, the defendants filed Ex.A4 to establish that they are not produced any documents to establish that they have no right to continue in the property belongs to the plaintiff. Contrarily, the defendants filed Ex.A4 to establish that there was no valid Kudiyiruppu Patta at all.
5. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that the defendants had not established any legal right for their continuance in the property belongs to the Temple. Contrarily, the plaintiff Temple filed documents to show that the defendants were the leaseholders and the lease already got expired and the defendants were not in possession of any patta or valid document to establish for their continuance in the Temple properties. In spite of the fact that the plaintiff Temple established the title of the property and the lease, which was expired, the Trial Court dismissed both the suits. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the First Appeal before the Additional Sub Court, Nagapattinam.
6. The First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court in O.S.Nos.354 & 355 of 2000. Challenging the above two decrees and judgments, the present Second Appeals have been filed. The Trial Court formulated the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as such sought for in the plaint?
2. Whether under Section 106 of Property Act, the notice issued to the defendants was in accordance with law or not?
7. Further, the issues were framed by stating that whether the defendants are not entitled to get the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Tenant Protection Act? and whether the defendants have established the Kudiyiruppu Patta, so as to continue in the Temple property?
8. In respect of the issues, the Trial Court found that the property belongs to the Temple was under the Kudiyiruppu Patta, and was in possession and enjoyment of the defendants. Thus, the defendants are entitled to get the benefit of the Kudiyiruppu Patta and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief as such sought for in the suits. The Trial Court came to such a conclusion only on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced any document to show that actions were initiated for vacating the premises in accordance with law. On that ground, the issue in relation to the continuance of the defendants was decided against the plaintiff. In respect of the issues 2 and 3 also, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that, the period of lease had not bee
