JUDGMENT :

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.173 of 1987 are the appellants herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.173 of 1987, before the District Munsif Court, Erode, seeking ejectment of the tenants/defendants from the suit property and for recovery of the vacant site leased out under Ex.A1/rental agreement. The suit was filed based upon Ex.A2/quit notice, dated 22.12.1986, whereby, the defendants were called upon to surrender the vacant possession on or before 07.01.1987 and failing which, they have to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month for usage and occupation of the building along with damages from 01.11.1986 till the date of vacating the vacant site and the said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.118 of 1998 and the same was dismissed by the learned Second Additional District Judge's Court, Erode and hence, Second Appeal.

4. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the courts below were right in their findings that the provisions of the City Tenant Protection Act are applicable to this case and that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 11 of the said Act?

2. Whether the Courts below were right in ignoring the specific pleadings and the evidence adduced by the first respondent that the superstructures on the vacant land were constructed only by his father and arrive at the conclusion that they were constructed by the partnership firm, further ignoring the specific pleadings of defendants 3 and 4 that the partnership firm did not make any constructions on the vacant land taken on lease by the firm?

3. Whether the courts below were right in ignoring specific admissions of defendants 3 and 4 that the partnership firm did not make any constructions on the vacant land taken on lease by the firm?

5. The plaintiffs/appellants have instituted the above said suit for ejectment based upon Ex.A1/registered lease deed, dated 18.08.1982 between K.V.Krishnasamy Chettiar and K.Subramani and based upon Ex.A2/quit notice purported to be issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act, dated 22.12.1996.

6. The respondents/defendants have resisted the above said suit by denying various averments, interalia contended that there was an original lease deed for the vacant site, which was marked as Ex.B3/registered rental agreement, dated 17.04.1970, based upon which, the said lessee K.V.Krishnasamy Chettiar and K.Subramani have applied for permission to put up some super structure to the Erode Municipality under Exs.A1 and A2. In the year 1971, the said K. Subramani has entered into partnership deed with Kumarasamy Gounder and three others as per Ex.B4 and the original rental agreement document was again extended under Ex.B5, dated 24.11.1972. Thereafter, another rental agreement was entered between K.V.Krishnasamy Chettiar and Kumarasamy Gounder, which was marked as Ex.B6, dated 15.11.1977 and further construction was put up by the lessee after obtaining the necessary permission from the Erode Municipality, which was marked as Ex.B9 and further extension of the partnership deed was marked under Ex.B14, dated 27.06.1980. Ex.B1 is the original and Ex.B15 is the xerox copy of the subject matter of the lease between the parties.

7(a). The Crux of the defence case is that Ex.A2/quit notice issued by the landlord is defective and not in accordance with under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and for want of prior notice under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, the suit is not maintainable.

7(b). The Trial Court has accepted the case of the defendants and dismissed the suit, against which, the plaintiffs had preferred the appeal and the Appellate Court has also dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal. This Second Appea