K RAMANUJAM CHETTIAR Vs. ARUNACHALESWARAR DEVASTANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions arise out of the judgments and decrees of the second Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras passed on 25-8-1976 in ejectment suits Nos. 285, 280, 284 and 286 of 1975.

(2.) THE trial court ordered eviction of the petitioners in these civil revision petitions holding that their old tenancy had been terminated and no new tenancy has come into existence thereafter, that there is no waiver of notice of the termination of tenancy by acceptance of any rent and that G. O. No. M. S. 1998 Home Department, dated 12-8-1974, exempting properties belonging to temples from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act of 1960 applies to the respondent-devastanams.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed before me only the question of the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, Madras, to entertain the ejectment suits under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. It may be stated at this stage that no p)ea of want of jurisdiction of the small Cause Court to entertain the suits had been taken in the written pleas filed by the petitioners in the ejectment suits and that the plea of want of jurisdiction of the lower Court was taken by the petitioners in the C. R. Ps. 2102, 2123 and 2125 of 1976 for the first time only in the memorandum of grounds of the civil revision petitions. The petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2199 of 1976 had not raised the plea of want of jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit even in the Memorandum of grounds of civil revision petition. But he has been allowed to raise that plea by an additional ground as per order in C. M. P. No. 4657 of 1977 by this court. The result is that the plea of want of jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suits under Section 41 of the Act has been taken for the first time only before this court in these civil revision petitions. The suits are really applications for issue of summons to show cause why the persons concerned should not be compelled to deliver up the properties.