The court emphasized tenant rights must be recognized and regularized over immediate possession recovery when prior rent collection and occupancy are established.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AS No. 261 of 2022 and CMP NO. 9492 OF 2022 M.Gopinath No.3, Sandiyappa Street, Choolai, Chennai 112.

Appellant Vs A/M. Angala Parameswari and Kasiviswanathaswami Thirukovil, Rep.by its Executive Officer, No.5, South Mada Street, Choolai, Chennai 112.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: This appeal suit have been filed under Section 96 of CPC., to allow the above first appeal and set aside decree and judgment dated 27.10.201 in OS No.1352 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellant(s): Mr.B.Ullasavelan For Respondent(s): Ms.P.A.Samyuktha For M/s.S.Kailasam & Associates

JUDGMENT

The land measuring an extent of 1116 sq. ft., bearing Door No.3, Sandiyappa Street, Choolain, Chennai, which belongs to the respondent temple, had come into possession of the appellant in the year 2012 and since then, he is in occupation of the said premises. In the year 2016, when he attempted to renovate the building, the respondent temple has found that he is not the tenant under the temple and therefore, treating him as a tresspasser issued demolition notice and thereafter, filed a suit in O.S.No.1352 of 2016, for recovery of possession and removal of the super-structure.

2. The appellant has contested the suit on the ground that the property had been occupied by one Dhanalakshmi Ammal who was the tenant under the temple and it was purchased by her earlier from one Duraisamy Naicker under a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1995. Thereafter, the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal sold the super-structure to the appellant on 20.02.2012. Due to incessant rain, the building got damaged and after informing to the Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple, he repaired and renovated the building.

3. That apart, the appellant had also taken a plea that the suit is not maintainable since it is filed by the Executive Officer of the temple without leave of the commissioner. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, the maintainablity of the suit is under challenge.

4. When notice was issued to the appellant, he had paid Rs.50,000/-

towards arrears of rent. Instead of regularizing the tenancy in his favour, the suit has been filed, despite the appellant being in the occupation of the premises under a proper valid sale agreement.

5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, partly allowed the suit with issuing mandatory injuction directing the defendant to demolish the construction and hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff temple. Being aggrieved, the appeal is filed on the ground that the appellant herein is residing in the suit premises for more than 12 years. It is a grama natham and the land belongs to the respondent temple. For the grama natham land, the temple is collecting rent without any title. The super-structure was put up by his predicessor in title and it is in existence from 1965. In end of 2015, when the building got damaged, steps were taken by the appellant to renovate the same. He is paying property tax to the Corporation and the electricity service stands in his name. While so, the plaintiff temple, having recognised him as a tenant and collecting rent, suddenly disowned the landlord-tenant relationship, and had filed a suit for demolishing the super-structure. Therefore, the appellant contended that the suit filed by the Executive Officer perse, is not maintainable. Further, when the plaintiff temple had recognised the appellant as a occupant of their land and collecting land rent, the proceedings under the HR & CE Act, ought to have been initiated only before the Joint Commissioner and filing the civil suit is barred under Sections 78 & 79 of