JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 19.9.2014 and passed in A.S.No.167 of 2013, confirming the decision rendered in the judgment and decree of the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 19.11.2012 and passed in O.S.No.5313 of 2001.)

1. The defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of delivery of vacant possession and for damages for use and occupation of the property from 01.09.2001 till the date of handing over of possession.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that they are the absolute owners of the suit property measuring an extent of 2400 Sq.ft. It is stated that the defendant is a tenant and the tenancy computed according to the English calendar month. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had put up unauthorised additional construction in the property without any permission and had also let out some portion of the property to various individuals without the consent of the plaintiff. Hence, a notice was issued through their counsel on 28.07.2001, marked as Ex.B3. This was a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy by the expiry of the end of the month of August 2001 and calling upon the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property. The defendant was also directed to pay the arrears of rent and for damages for the use and occupation from 01.09.2001 onwards till handing over of the vacant possession.

4. The defendant received the notice and did not comply with the same and hence the suit came to be filed seeking for the reliefs referred supra.

5. The defendant filed a written statement and took a stand that they are paying the rents regularly. That apart, they were not putting up any additional construction and they were only attempting to carry out the repair works since the building was in a dilapidated condition. The defendant also questioned the termination of tenancy by issuing a notice through counsel. The defendant also claimed their right under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922. The defendant thus sought for the dismissal of the suit.

6. Both the courts below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on analysing the oral and documentary evidence, held against the defendant and the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this second appeal.

7. This Court framed the following substantial questions of law.

(a) Whether the termination notice issued by the respondent temple by way of legal notice can be held to be valid when Section 34-B of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1958 provides for issuance of such a notice by a competent authority?

(b) Whether the suit filed by the respondent temple is maintainable in view of the specific bar contained under Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1958?

(c) Whether the findings of both the Courts below can be held to be perverse since it is not in accordance with the oral and documentary evidence available on record?

8. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions.

* The termination notice issued through the counsel for the plaintiff temple is invalid and the lease can be terminated only by way of issuing a notice under Section 34B of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'HR&CE Act').

* There is a specific bar under Section 108 of the HR & CE Act to institute any suit where there is already a provision under the HR & CE Act to evict the tenant if he is overstaying after the termination of the tenancy under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act.

* Both the Courts below did not properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and erroneously decreed the suit by rendering perverse fin