ARULMIGU SAKTHIVANESWARASWAMY Vs. HABIB RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed praying to set aside the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S. No. 18 of 2005 dated 31.10.2005 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam reversing the Decree and Judgment of the Additional District Munsif Court No. 1, Kumbakonam in O.S. No. 24 of 2002 dated 29.9.2003. The Plaintiff is the temple, who is the Appellant herein.

(2.) The Suit is for recovery of possession.

(3.) The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaint Schedule property belonged to the Temple and it was leased out to the First Defendant as found in the Temple records. But now, the Second Defendant is in possession of the property as a Sub-Tenant of the First Defendant, which is against law. As the First Defendant was not paying the lease properly and without the written consent of the temple had sub-let the property, the temple decided to evict him from the premises. The First Respondent also had put up superstructure over the Suit property. Therefore, the Plaintiff issued Notice on 21.12.2000 calling upon the Defendants to remove the superstructure and vacate the Suit property. As the Temple is a public temple, neither the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act nor the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act is applicable to the facts.