The validity of documents issued under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and the entitlement to benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act were central to the court's decision.

1. The present Second Appeal on hand is filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.296 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8323 of 1988.

2. The ranking given in the Trial Court is followed as the ranking in the present judgment. The suit is for recovery of possession. The suit land bearing Door No.5, Whites Road, 2nd lane, Chennai-600 014 to an extent of 5372 square feet in Survey.No.328/4 is absolutely belonged to the plaintiff temple and the same was let out to one Durairajan on monthly rent of Rs.7.50/- payable on the first week of every month. The said lessee has put up a construction over the leased land and he was in enjoyment. The said Mr.Durairajan has sold away the superstructure along with the lease hold right to the defendant by virtue of a registered Sale Deed. Though the said assignment was recognised by the Executive Officer, it was not recognised subsequently. The defendant appears to be in lawful possession. The Temple has required site for its own use and occupation. The plaintiff Temple has sent lawyer notice to the defendant on 25.04.1988 and the same was delivered in person. The defendant on receipt of the notice had not responded nor issued any reply. Thus, the temple was constrained to file the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property.

3. The defendant filed written statement by stating that the property was purchased by the defendant with lease hold right from Mr.Durairajan under two different Sale Deeds on 26.05.1986 and took possession of the suit schedule property on the same day. The subsisting tenancy over the land at Rs.7.50/- per month was paid in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant was paying rent for the land. The defendant had decided to put up further construction over the land and requested the Temple authorities to grant permission for developing construction in the land belongs to the Temple. The planning permission was given by the Corporation of Chennai and the defendant was doing tyre retrading business in the suit schedule property. The defendant further proceeds by stating that by virtue of the Sale Deeds dated 26.05.1986, he became the absolute owner of the premises in possession and enjoyment. Thus, he is entitled to the benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act. The plaintiff having recognised the defendant and granted permission for constructing the permanent structure, was estopped from denying the existence of jural relationship between the Temple and the defendants.

4. The trail Court formulated the issues as to whether the possession of the suit property by the defendant is lawful or not? Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit property as prayed for in the Civil Suit?

5. In respect of the issues, the Trial Court considered the No objection letter given by the Executive Officer of the Temple, which is marked as Ex.B2. Electricity connections were provided in respect of the superstructure constructed by the defendant. The defendant had obtained planning permission which was marked as a document Ex.B3 dated 25.03.1987, issued by the Corporation of Chennai. At that stage, more specifically, during the pendency of the original suit, the defendant filed I.A.No.2445 of 1989 under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and the same was allowed by the Court on 23.10.1992. The Commissioner was appointed for ascertaining the extent of land required by the defendant to carryout the business in the suit property.

6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trail Court, the plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.14 of 1994 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 08.02.1996 by holding that the defendant is not a tenant in respect of the suit schedule property under the plaintiff Temple and the defendant is not entitled for any benefit under Section 8 of the City Tenants Protection Act. The Civil Revision Petitio