Rights of lessee remains operative till the time he is in possession of the property.

The appellant as well as the revision petitioner was the defendant in O.S. No.9804 of 1977, on the file of the First Assistant City Civil Court, Madras. After the filing of the second appeal and the C.R.P., he died and his legal representatives have been impleaded.

2. The suit filed by the plaintiff Sri Kamakshiamman Temple, Saidapet, represented by its trustees, was to recover possession of the plaint property from the defendant.

3. The defendant claimed that he is a tenant under the City Tenants Protection Act and filed I.A. No. 16300 of 1978. When the interlocutory application was filed, evidence was taken therein. Both the application and the suit were disposed of by a common judgment and, therefore, the defendant’s exhibits were marked as Ex. A series and the plaintiffs exhibits were marked as B series. The suit was decreed. The interlocutory application filed by the defendant was dismissed. Appeal preferred by the defendant was also without any success. It is against the concurrent judgment, the second appeal has been preferred by the defendant, and against the order dismissing the interlocutory application, the revision is filed.

.4. The material averments in the plaint are as follows: It is the case of the plaintiff that as per Ex.B-1 dated 29. 1963, the plaint property was leased to defendant’s wife Parvathi Ammal, for a period of three years, and, after the expiry of term, on the basis of the arrangement between the defendant and the plaintiff, the defendant is continuing in possession of the plaint property. After expiry of the term, the plaintiff issued a notice terminating the tenancy as per Ex.B-6 and wanted recovery of possession. Since the defendant did not comply with the request, the suit was filed to recover the property. Ex.B-1 is a registered deed of lease in respect of superstructure and also land measuring 40 feet x 50 feet. The superstructure is having a measurement of 24 feet x 18 feet, and the agreed rent is Rs. 12.50 p. per mensem. It is stated that the defendant who became a tenant after the expiry of the term of Ex.B-1, was in wilful default in payment of rents of Rs.635 upto 38. 1971. It is said that the defendant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7.50 p. as rent. It is also stated that immediately after the expiry of the term, the plaintiff filed a rent control petition for eviction, and when the matter was pending, a notification was published by the Government exempting temple and its building from the purview of the Rent Control Act and, therefore, the plaintiff withdrew the rent control petition with liberty to file a civil suit for ejectment. It is further said that the property which has been leased out to the temple is within the compound wall of the temple and the same is required by the plaintiff for installing deities and Devasthanam’s use.

5. On the above allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit.

.6. In the written statement, the defendant contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the plaint property, the main reason being that an area of 100 x 125 feet having a total plinth area of 12.500 sq. ft. belonged to the temple, and which includes the plaint schedule also was leased out to defendant’s maternal uncle, late Natesa Mudaliar, in March, 1951. The rent was Rs.25 per mensem. The said Natesa Mudaliar put up a construction on the suit land and was doing firewood business. Since the lessee could not do the business, he left the same and the superstructure was agreed to be taken by the defendant and was being enjoyed by him. From November, 1951, the defendant became tenant of the temple and was carrying on firewood business and was residing in the superstructure. It is further said that in the year 1960. he started doing business in weaving on the land instead of firewood. In 1963, for the purpose of his business, the lease agreement was executed in favour of his wife Parvathi Ammal on a monthly rent of Rs.12.50 p. Even though the agreement was in favour of the