T KASINATHAN Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (PRAYER: This second appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment dated 25. 11. 1996, in A. S. No. 2/1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal, reversing the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 165/1995, dated 25. 10. 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal. This appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 2/1996 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal. The plaintiff, who has won the case before the trial Court but lost the same before the first appellate Court, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE short facts in the plaint which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:-The suit is for permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the statutory tenant under the defendant under the lease agreement which was entered into between the plaintiff and the Special Officer of the said Temple on 22. 8. 1991 for a period of two years. An he had also paid a sum of Rs. 1,200/- for the said period, the plaintiff has raised a fence surrounding the suit property. Subsequently, a registered lease agreement was entered into on 1. 4. 1992 between the plaintiff and the then Special Officer of the said Devasthanam. The defendant had received a sum of Rs. 800/- towards advance. And the monthly rent agreed was Rs. 200/- and under the said lease agreement the plaintiff was permitted to manufacture windows and other works with in cement. Under the lease deed the plaintiff was permitted to raise a temporary structure for the said purpose. The plaintiff continues in possession of the suit property even after expiry of the lease deed till today. The then Special Officer by name Singaravelu died on 29. 9. 1993 and the present Special Officer had taken charge during June, 1994. When the defendant was approached by the plaintiff to pay the rents for the suit property the same was refused without any sufficient reason. The plaintiff then issued a lawyer's notice on 8. 7. 1994 along with demand draft for Rs. 2,000/- which is the rent for the period September-1993 to June- 1994. The defendant received the notice and also the demand draft. On 3. 7. 1994 the defendant had auctioned the properties belonging to the Devesthanam in Mela Vanjoor village excepting the suit property. Subsequently, the plaintiff approached the defendant for paying rents for the month of July 1994 the defendant refused to receive the same. But on 12. 10. 1994 the defendant had chosen to issue circular dated 12. 10. 1994 claiming that the plaintiff had encroached on the suit property. In which he had admitted the lease deed executed by his predecessor. A lawyer's notice was issued on 27. 10. 1994 stating all the facts along with demand draft for a sum of Rs. 600/- being the monthly rent for the period July to September. The defendant received this demand draft also. The plaintiff had taken water connection and electricity connection to the suit property. He had been regularly paying the taxes in respect of the same. Thereafter the defendant has issued a lawyer's notice on 22. 12. 1994. The defendant on 26. 2. 1995 came to the suit property along with some henchmen and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also stored properties worth about Rs. 40,000/- in the suit property and had also raised a temporary structure worth about Rs. 5,000/- in the suit property.

(3.) IN the written statement the defendant would contend as follows: the plaintiff is a lessee under the Devasthanam under a lease deed dated 1. 4. 1992 for a period of two years. The said lease deed has been registered on 2. 4. 1992. The monthly rent agreed is Rs. 200/- and it is also true that an advance amount of Rs. 800/- was paid by the plaintiff. Under the said lease agreement the defendant's devasthanam can evict the plaintiff after giving three months notice if the suit property is required for the administration of the temple. The plaintiff is not a statutory tenant in respect of the suit property. He has no right to raise a super structure. The suit property was leased only for the purpose of manufacturing articles with cement. Once the lease period is over the plaintiff has to vacate the suit property and therefore his possession of the suit property is a wrongful one. It is true a demand draft for Rs. 2,000/- was issued along with notice dated 8. 7. 1994 by the plaintiff and the defendant had received the same and had credited the said amount towards rental arrears. The defendant's devasthanam had auctioned properties only at Keelavanjoor village and the suit property was not auctioned since there is a proposal to raise a Kalyanamandapam in the said place. Further the lease deed had expired by 31. 3. 1994 itself therefore the plaintiff cannot continue to be in possession of the same. Therefore the circular issued on 1. 4. 1994 is in order. It is true that the defendant had received the notice dated 27. 10. 1994 along with a demand draft for Rs. 6,000/ -. The defendant never attempted to evict the plaintiff by wrongful method. Under the above circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit is bad for non issuance of notice under Section 80 of CPC.