ST. FRANCIS XAVIERS CHURCH BY ITS PRESENT PARISH PRIEST REV. FATHER JOSEPH SANDANAM Vs. VARALAKSHMI AMMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who has failed before the trial Court and the lower appellate Court in his action for recovery of possession of the suit site, is the appellant herein. As may be seen from the cause -title, the plaintiff is a Church, and the suit was instituted against four persons, of whom the first and fourth defendants alone are respondents herein, for recovery of possession of a site measuring 45' x 47' in Survey No. 2306/1 in St. Xavier Street, Madras. On the suit site the first respondent's father had Pvt. up a superstructure and it world appear to bear municipal door number 2/2. The second respondent is alleged to be a sub -lessee under the first respondent, the other two sub -lessees viz., defendants 2 and 3, being reported to have since vacated the premises. On the ground that the suit property was a part of the Church and hence res extra commercium, the appellant terminated the tenancy of the first respondent by notice, dated 16th November, 1965 and this was followed by a suit when possession, was not surrendered.

(2.) THE defence of the first respondent was that the suit site had been taken on lease by her father Varadarajulu Naidu fifty years ago, and, in ejectment proceedings instituted by the appellant, there was a compromise in C.C.C.A. No. 32 of 1951 on the file of this Court, wherein it was specifically agreed that the appellant should enter into a registered lease with the first respondent for leasing the site for a period of twenty -one years at the enhanced rent of Rs. 30 per mensem as against the original rent of Rs. 15 per mensem. The period of twenty -one years not having expired, the first respondent challenged the suit as premature. Secondly, it was contended that the lease would be governed by the City Tenants' Protection Act and therefore, the first respondent was entitled to rights and benefits conferred on her as a tenant by the said Act. The second respondent sailed with the first respondent and contended that he was a sub -lessee to the knowledge of the appellant and the suit for ejectment was not maintainable.

(3.) THE trial Court rejected the claim of the first respondent that she was entitled, under the City Tenants' Protection Act, to have the suit site sold to her on the ground that the site formed an integral part of the Church and was, therefore, res extra commercium. It, however, sustained the first ground of defence, viz., that in view of the compromise decree passed in C.C.C.A. No. 32 of 1951, the first respondent was entitled to be in possession of the site for a period of twenty -one years from the date of the decree and consequently, the suit was premature. In that view of the matter, it dismissed the appellant's suit. The appeal to the Second Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, by the appellant also ended in failure since the lower appellate Court concurred with the view of the trial Court that the suit was premature. It is in these circumstance, the appellant has come forward with this second appeal.