JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment of the First Appellate Court, reversing the judgment of the trial Court, decreeing the suit for eviction and for arrears of rent, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief fact, leading to file this Second Appeal, reads as follows:-

The suit property belongs to the plaintiff Temple and the defendant was a tenant under the Temple and executed a paguthi chit in favour of Temple on 01.11.1981. The rent according to the plaintiff is Rs. 10/- per month. The defendant has sub-let the suit site unauthorisedly and was in arrears of rent. Till 1406 fasli year, the defendant has to pay a sum of Rs. 960/- and after due intimation to the defendant, the Joint Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. Department has fixed the fair rent at Rs. 390/- per month. The fair rent is under H.R. & C.E., Rules and the defendant was in arrears of enhanced rent from 1407 fasli year. The defendant was in willful default and hence, the plaintiff Temple sent legal notice, terminating the tenancy of the defendant as on 31.10.2000. The notice was duly served and the defendant neither paid the enhanced rental arrears nor removed the superstructure and handed over the vacant site. The defendant after receiving notice sent a sum of Rs. 690/-, leaving the arrears of Rs. 17,568/-. Hence, the suit has been filed for arrears of rent and eviction.

4. Admitting the tenancy, it is the contention of the defendant that he has not defaulted and not sub-let the property to anyone. There was no mutual consent for enhancing the rent and there were no arrears as stated by the plaintiff. There is no intimation to the defendant with regard to the fair rent of Rs. 390/- per month and nobody has intimated about the same to him. There was no default on the side of the defendant. Since the defendant has not accepted the enhanced rent, the same will not bind the defendant. The defendant is a legitimate paguthithar of the suit site and there is no necessity for him to remove the superstructure and hand over the possession. Hence, he resisted the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed five issues. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs. A.1 to A.7 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W. 1 was examined and Exs. B.1 to B.7 were marked. The trial Court, after analyzing the evidence, has decreed the suit. Whereas before the First Appellate Court, it was argued by the defendant that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court. Only under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Joint Commissioner has power to evict the tenants. The First Appellate Court has accepted the said contentions and held that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court and also observed that the Temple is entitled to enhance the rent and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards enhanced rent and set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Against which, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

6. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:-

"1. Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain suit for possession of the suit property has been ousted by reason of Section 79 of HR & CE Act sustainable in law?;

2. Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court is right when the plaintiff is not entitled for enhancement of rent thought it has observed that the plaintiff is entitled for enhancement of rent and even ordered for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards rent without any basis?."

7. In the Second Appeal stage, applications in C.M.P.(MD) No. 2205 of 2019 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2014 have been filed for reception of additional evidence by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. This Court, by its order dated 04.12.201