RAJAMUDALIAR Vs. ARULMIGU KAMATCHIAMMAN KOIL TIRUVANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (PRAYER: Second Appeal against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.70 of 1994 on the file of Sub-ordinate Judge, Tiruvanamalai dated 27.01.1995 confirming the judgement and decree of the learned District Munsif in O.S.No.169 of 1981 dated 20.06.1994.) The unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below are the appellants out of whom the first appellant died.

(2.) THE plaintiff which is the temple governed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, has leased out the suit property along with the building for three years from 01.02.1978 on a monthly rent of Rs.267/- to the defendants and on 02.05.1978 the plaintiff and defendants have entered into a registered rental agreement marked as Ex.A.1 based on which after three years, namely, on 31.01.1981 the defendants are bound to deliver vacant possession. Even though no termination notice is required, the plaintiff has issued a notice on 26.12.1980 marked as Ex.A.2, which was received by the defendants on 27.12.1980 marked as Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4, which is the postal acknowledgment for which in fact the reply was given on behalf of the defendants on 21.01.1981 under Ex.A.5. Since the Rent Control Act is not applicable, the plaintiff has filed the suit for possession. While the defendants have admitted the rental agreement till 31.01.1981, it is their case that they have paid the rent at the rate of Rs.275/- per month from 01.12.1981 to 31.01.1984 and therefore, it should be deemed to be a fresh tenancy.

(3.) WHILE admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed: