NANDHAKUMAR Vs. ARULMIGHU KACHALEESHWARAR DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S. No.6667 of 2001 on the file of the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant herein. The respondent is the sole plaintiff in the suit. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for a decree for recovery of possession, decree for payment of arrears of rent, for damages and for future damages for use and occupation of the suit property.

(2.) THE Trial Court decreed the suit in part granting decree only for recovery of possession and the other reliefs sought for were all denied. As against the said decree and judgment of the Trial Court dated 23.08.2010, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S. No.109 of 2012 before the learned III -Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The lower appellate Court by decree and judgment dated 09.06.2014, dismissed the said appeal thereby confirmed the decree and judgment of the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this second appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that admittedly the suit property was leased out to the mother of the appellant herein and after the demise of his mother, the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a lessee under the temple. The learned counsel further submitted that rent was paid promptly but there was no formal order passed by the Temple recognizing the appellant as a tenant on the demise of his mother. The said order should have been passed by the Commissioner of H.R.&C.E. Since such an order could not be passed, according to the learned counsel for the appellant rent has all along been paid by the appellant herein but eviction has been ordered because the appellant has not been recognized as a tenant in the place of his mother by a formal order of the Commissioner. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant the Courts below were not right in decreeing the suit as stated above.