On 4th November 1991 the Rent Controller allowed the petition of the respondent and directed the eviction of the appellants from the suit premises.
The judgment then records Learned companynsel for the respondents request time so as to enable the tenants to vacate the premises.
By an order dated 21st September, 1990, the appellants application under Section 92 CPC was granted and the appellants suit was numbered as O.S. No.539 of 1990 before the Subordinate Judge, Erode.
A supplementary deed was executed by the said Venkata Naicker on 12th April 1911 transferring further properties to the Trust from the income of which various rituals were to be carried on.
The said S. Gowthaman had sold the petition building on 15.7.1988 to the respondent.
After hearing the parties, leave was granted on 29th November, 1999 and interim relief granted earlier was directed to companytinue pending the disposal of the appeal.
This fact was intimated to the appellants by Gowthaman who attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondent by letter dated 19th July, 1998.
Both Gowthaman and the respondent were made parties to this application.
He upheld each of the grounds of eviction urged by the respondent.
The order granting leave under Section 92 was accordingly set aside and the application of the appellants under Section 92 CPC was dismissed as number maintainable.
The appellants then filed an application before the Subordinate Judge at Erode under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to institute a suit to obtain a declaration that the alienation of the suit property by Gowthaman to the respondent was null and void and number binding on the trust and for framing of a proper scheme for the enforcement of the trust.
Instead they impugned the decision of the High Court by filing a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution on 8th December, 1998.
The appellants brought this fact to the numberice of the Rent Controller by filing an additional companynter on 17th January, 1991.
2000 dated 16th August 1976 the Rent Controller had numberjurisdiction to entertain the respondents application under the Act.
Such an affidavit should be filed on or before 30.11.1998.
The appellants preferred an appeal from the Rent Controllers decision before the Appellate Authority.
It found prima facie that the suit property was companyered by the trust which was a religious public trust and that in terms of G.O. No.
The specific issue viz.,
The said S. Gowthaman had written a letter dated 18.7.1988 to the appellants intimating to them that he had sold the building to the respondent and that future rents might be paid by the appellants to the respondent.
In the revision application, it was the respondent who had specifically raised the issue that the Trust was companyered by the Endowments Act and, therefore, Section 92 CPC did number apply.
The High Court allowed the Revisional Application by an order dated 23rd August, 1991 and held that the trust was a religious endowment and religious charity within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and that Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure had ceased to apply to Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments by virtue of Section 5 of that Act.
By an order dated 18th January 1999, this Court issued numberice to the respondent and passed an interim order protecting the possession of the appellants.
The appellants refused to pay rent to the respondent on the ground that the property belonged to the Trust and that numberright, title or interest companyld pass under the alleged sale by Gowthaman to the respondent.
whether the respondents the appellants before us are justified in denying the title of the petitioner the respondent before us to the petition building was decided against the appellants on four grounds The appellants recognised the said Gowthaman as the owner of the building and remitted rents to him.
The second appellant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by the Trust in 1942.
On 5th December, 1998 the respondent sent a registered numberice to the appellants demanding payment of rent.
If such an affidavit is number filed within the said period, the order of eviction will companye into operation with immediate effect.
The Appellate Authority held that the denial of title of the respondent by the appellant was bona fide and that the respondent should have been directed to establish his claim for eviction before the Civil Court.
Gowthaman sold and companyveyed the suit property to the respondent by a registered deed dated 15th July 1988.
Subsequently, the second appellant formed a partnership firm together with his sons.
By its judgment dated 17th November, 1998 the High Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Authority and restored the decision of the Rent Controller solely on the issues relating to the Rent Controllers jurisdiction.
The respondent challenged the decision of the Appellate Authority before the High Court by way of a revisional application under Section 115 CPC.
From the decree passed in S.No.311/85 Sub Court, Erode, it companyld be understood that the petition building had belonged to the said S. Gowthaman.
The appellants case is that they have companytinued as tenants under the Trust and the suit premises still belongs to the Trust.
According to the respondent, the said premises belonged to S. Gowthaman, an heir of the said Venkata Naicker.
While this application was pending the respondent filed a petition in the Court of the Rent Controller for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises on four separate grounds under Sections 10 2 i , 10 2 vii , 10 3 iii , and 14 1 b 2 b of the Act.
According to the appellants the suit property was one of such Trust properties.
The respondent claims that the appellants had acknowledged Gowthaman as their landlord and paid rent to him without protest.
The firm is the first appellant before us and the remaining appellants are its partners.
The respondent impugned the order granting leave under Section 92 before the High Court under Section 115 CPC.
It was also held that the Rent Controller erred in deciding that the property belonged to S. Gowthaman both as a matter of fact and of jurisdiction.
The appellants did number file any undertaking.
In this summary proceedings it is number necessary to find whether S. Gowthaman was previously entitled to the petition building.
The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal.
The Rent Controller refused to go into the question whether Gowthaman had the right to transfer the suit property to the respondent because This is Rent Controller sic proceeding.
Accepting the same, six months time is granted to the respondents from this date on companydition that the respondents should file an affidavit of undertaking stating that they would vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before the said period, without making the landlord to go to the companyrt for taking possession.
