JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 1272 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore against the respondent/defendant contending that as per the lease, the defendant is the tenant of the suit property, not agreed for the fair rent fixed by the temple authority. Hence, a notice was issued terminating the tenancy, which was replied with false allegations and also not paid the enhanced rent. Hence, the suit.

2. The defendant admits that he entered into a lease with the plaintiff temple, but contended that no notice of demand prior to fixation of fair rent was served on him and also not given any opportunity to the defendant as required under Sec.34-A and 34-B of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter called as 'Act') and the notice as such issued by the plaintiff also not maintainable under law.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

4. Before the trial court, evidences were adduced on both sides along with documents and on framing separate issues, the trial court held that fair rent proposal was not intimated to the defendant as per Sec.34-A and 34-B of the Act and the notice issued by the plaintiff seeking eviction of defendant by terminating the tenancy by invoking Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter called as 'T.P. Act'), as such it is not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.105 of 2011, wherein the appellate judge analysed the facts and evidence held that fair rent was not fixed by complying the provisions under Sec.34-A and 34-B of the Act, and proper procedure was also not followed, besides, the notice of termination of lease issued under Sec.106 of T.P. Act also not maintainable. Accordingly, the first appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court by dismissing the appeal.

5. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiff temple preferred this appeal contending that both the courts below miserably failed to note that Secs.34-A to 34-D had been inserted by way of Amendment Act 25 of 2003 and the same came into force only on 10.05.2003, but the suit was filed in the month of January 2003 before the said amendment. But, without appreciating those legal aspects, both the courts below erroneously dismissed the plaintiff's claim, as such, it is perverse in nature. Accordingly, the plaintiff temple prayed to set aside the findings and filed this Second Appeal. This Second Appeal is admitted on the following question of law :-

“i) Whether the courts below were right in holding that the suit for eviction filed contrary to Sec.34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act is not maintainable, without appreciating the fact that the suit was filed on 23.04.2003 and Sec.34-A introduced by amendment Act, 25 of 2003, came into effect only on 10.05.2003.

ii) Whether the courts below were right in holding that notice issued under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not valid, when the Rent Control Act is not applicable to the properties belonging to the Public Religious Institution, and eviction can be sought for, only by issuing notice under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act.”

6. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property as prescribed in the plaint schedule with an extent of 4500 sq.ft. with the superstructure bearing Door No.20/83, New Door No.211 in T.S.No.2/977 ( T.S.No.2/13A) of Coimbatore Town belongs to temple and the same was leased out to the defendant for a monthly rent of Rs.750/- per month from 21.11.1985. Before that, he was a sub-tenant under one P.V.Rangasamy, but it was denied by the defendant. The suit property is comprised of a building and vacant space. So, a Fair Rent Committee was constituted by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department and a fair rent for the suit property was fixed at Rs.7083/- per mo