UNNAMALAI RAMASAMY Vs. ARULMIGU SRINIVASA PERUMAL TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

(2.) The suit filed by the temple for recovery of vacant possession was allowed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed confirming the trial court judgment and decree. Against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal is filed.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the suit property was let out to the appellant herein under the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE, Ex.A4 dated 08.03.1990. The extent of the property is 400 sq.ft. Along with the appellant, two others were also granted lease of portion of the land. They are M.Elumalai, Office Assistant HR and CE Department, for whom, 280 sq.ft. was leased for the rent of Rs.70/-, the other person Ramakrishnan, Watchman of the temple, for whom, 160 sq.ft. of land for rent of Rs.60 was allotted. The third person, the appellant herein, 400 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.100/- per month was allotted. Subsequently, when the temple Executive Officer found that the appellant herein is trying to make repair work in the building leased out to her, within two weeks after leasing out of the premises to the appellant, issued a notice to the appellant on 20.03.1990. In the said notice, they instructed her to stop further repair work in the suit premises or else rental agreement will be cancelled. The said fact is reflected in the notice marked as Ex.A8. Thereafter, on 23.05.1990, the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE, has instructed the Executive Officer of the temple to take necessary action to terminate the lease since the building is in dilapidated condition and therefore, the occupant of the building should be evicted following due process of law. As a consequence, the Executive Officer of the respondent temple has issued a termination notice as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 13.11.1990, informing the appellant herein to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the land in her occupation on or before 01 January 1991. On receipt of the quit notice, the appellant through her counsel has issued a reply dated 24.12.1990, stating that after the temple recognised her as a tenant under the proceedings dated 08.03.1990, she has invested around Rs.15,000/- to renovate the dilapidated portion of the building rented out and she has invested the money with anticipation of erecting pakka building, for which, the Executive Officer has given consent. While so, the termination notice is invalid in law and also the appellant is entitled to the City Tenants' Protection Act.