T M BHOOPATHY Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the lessee of the suit property. The defendant, who is the owner of the suit property, had leased out the property to the plaintiff's father-Murugesa Naicker in the year 1936. Since then, it is claimed that, both the plaintiff and his father has been paying the kist receipts to the competent authorities. But, subsequently, when the temple authorities with malafide intention refused to receive the lease amount, the plaintiff, by apprehending some unlawful action from the hands of the defendant, filed a suit in O.S.No.2248 of 1996 before the Vth Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its employees, servants, workmen and agents in any manner interfering and disturbing and evicting the plaintiff from the property bearing Survey No.104/6, in a total extent of 16 cents in Thiruvanmiyur Village, Mylaore, Triplicane Taluk.

(2.) OPPOSING the said claim, a detailed written statement was filed by the defendant, taking a specific stand that the suit was not maintainable, as no notice was issued under Section 80 CPC to the defendant-Executive Officer. Further, the plaintiff also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2357 of 1996 on the very same cause of action and the same was also pending, therefore, for the same cause action, when the writ was pending, no suit was maintainable.

(3.) THIS Court, at the time of entertaining the second appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law:-