The Executive Officer of a temple cannot file suit without authorization from the temple's Board, highlighting the necessity for proper legal process in tenancy disputes. Additionally, tenants must receive adequate notice prior to eviction.

JUDGMENT :

 P. DHANABAL, J.

The Second appeal in S.A. No.76 of 2015 has been preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore in A.S. No.57 of 2006. The Respondent herein had filed an Original Suit on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in O.S. No.1104 of 2002 as against the appellant herein for recovery of possession and to pay a sum of Rs.23,175/- towards arrears of rent and to pay a sum of Rs.2,455/- towards future damages for the usage and occupation of property.

The Second Appeal in S.A. No.35 of 2017 has been preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore in A.S. No.18 of 2006. The Respondent herein had filed an Original Suit on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in O.S. No.1107 of 2002 as against the appellant herein for recovery of possession and to pay a sum of Rs.31,425/- towards arrears of rent and to pay a sum of Rs.2,455/- towards future damages for the use and occupation of property. The trial Court decreed the Suit and in the first appeal, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

2. In both the cases, the case of the Plaintiff temple is that the temple is under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The Suit property belonged to the Plaintiff temple and the defendants are the tenants of the Suit property. Initially one Velu Naicker, the father of the defendants, was the tenant of the entire property. After his demise, the wife of the said Velu Naicker and mother of the defendants namely Lakshmiammal, became the tenant and was paying rent. In the year 1991, the said Lakshmiammal could not continue the tenancy due to her health condition. Thereafter her sons namely V. Nagarajan, V. Ranganathan, V. Balasubramanian, V. Singaravelu, V. Gurulingam and V. Srinivasan made a joint representation to the Plaintiff temple stating that they will continue the tenancy by doing individual business, so that the tenanted-property can be divided and the individual property be allotted to them. On that basis, the temple authorities permitted the said six persons to occupy the individual areas of the properties. Therefore, the defendants and their siblings became tenants from the year 1991 onwards.

2.1. The defendants had also executed a rent note to the Plaintiff. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.500/- from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1994. From 01.04.1991 onwards, the monthly rent was Rs.625/-. Thereafter, a Fair-Rent Committee of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had fixed the fair rent for the property at Rs.2,455/- and the same was duly informed to the defendants. The defendants also had given a consent letter dated 01.07.1999 accepting the rent at Rs.1,250/- per month, but the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had directed to implement the fair rent at the rate of Rs.2,455/- per month from 01.11.2001 onwards. The defendants have not paid the rent for a long time and they have committed default in payment of rent and the arrears of rent due is Rs.29,175/- in O.S. No.1104 of 2002 as on 31.03.2002 and Rs.37,425/- in O.S. No.1107 of 2002 as on 31.03.2002. The defendants also had paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- each towards advance and the same was adjusted in the said arrears. As on date, the defendant in O.S. No.1104 of 2002 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.23,175