Tenancy rights must be legally established as per applicable laws; mere possession without proper tenancy is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. They filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the first respondent/defendant to receive a monthly rent of Rs.37.50 ps from the plaintiff pertaining to the suit A-schedule site from the month of December, 2012 till the month of March, 2014 and continue to accept the monthly rents from the plaintiff at the same rate. They also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the first Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit A-schedule site belongs to the first defendant temple and originally, one Rangasamy Iyengar was the lessee of the A-schedule property. After putting up construction over the said land, he sold the superstructure to one Venkatarama Iyer by the sale deed, dated 20.04.1918. He, in turn, sold the said property to one C.R.Pattabirama Iyengar under the sale deed, dated 22.12.1921. After demise of the said C.R.Pattabirama Iyengar, his only son, C.P.Rajagopala Iyengar sold the superstructure in favour of one Rajalaksmi Ammal, who, in turn, sold the same to one Munuswamy Chetty by the sale deed, dated 09.06.1947. He sold the superstructure along with leasehold rights to one V.S.Venkateswara Iyer under the sale deed, dated 26.02.1951 and the plaintiff purchased the leasehold right over the suit A-schedule site along with the superstructure from the said V.S.Venkateswara Iyer under the sale deed, dated 17.02.1978. According to the plaintiff, he is owner of the superstructure which is fully described in the schedule-B to the plaint and he is the tenant of the first defendant in respect of the first schedule site.

3. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that after purchase of the said superstructure, he had written a letter, dated 14.05.1982 to the first defendant expressing his willingness to purchase the suit A-schedule property, over which, the B-schedule superstructure stands. Though the first defendant directed the plaintiff to submit a sketch of the land in triplicate, no further action had been taken. Thereafter, the first defendant instituted a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.No.2688 of 2004 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and sought for ejectment of the plaintiff and his vendor, Venkateswara Iyer. The said suit was dismissed on 29.10.2012. The first defendant did not choose to challenge the same by filing any appeal. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that he has been paying rents regularly to the first defendant and all of a sudden, the first defendant issued a notice on 30.01.2013 to the erstwhile lessee namely, the vendor of the plaintiff, asking him to pay the arrears of Rs.19,76,026/-. It was also stated in the notice that in case of failure, action would be taken under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The said notice was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.5935 of 2013 on the ground that on the date of issue of notice, the vendor of the plaintiff namely, Venkateswara Iyer was not alive. This Court quashed the notice against dead person and directed the first defendant to take action against the plaintiff in accordance with law. After disposal of the Writ Petition, the plaintiff had tendered the monthly rents to the first defendant either