B.Shaji v. Sree Pravaraswamy Devasthanam

grounds of defence, the suit was resisted on the ground that thesame was not maintainable in law, as the respondenttemple/plaintiff temple would come within the purview of theTamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 3. The trial court framed the question ofmaintainability of the suit as the first issue and three otherissues. At the end of trial, the learned trial judge decided allthe issues in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff andagainst the appellant herein/defendant and consequently decreedthe suit for recovery of possession, for recovery of a sum ofRs.4,500/- as arrears of the rent from February 1999 to July 1999and thereafter damages for use and occupation at the rate ofRs.1,500/- per month till delivery of possession. 4. Impugning the said judgment and decree of the trialcourt dated 31.03.2006, the appellant herein/defendant preferredA.S.No.482/2007 and the same was dismissed by the lower appellatejudge, namely learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court,Chennai on 14.07.2008 confirming the decree passed by the trialcourt. Hence the appellant/defendant has filed the presentsecond appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum ofgrounds of second appeal. 5. Along with the second appeal, the appellant has alsofiled a miscellaneous petition M.P.No.1/2008 in S.A.No.1316/2008praying for stay of execution of the decree. This court, by anorder dated 29.10.2008 granted interim stay on condition that theappellant should deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards arrears ofrent to the credit of the original suit within two weeks from thedate of the said order. In the said order permission was grantedto the respondent herein/plaintiff to withdraw the said amountalong with any other amount which was already deposited by theappellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant was also directedto pay future rents to the respondent. Admittedly, first part ofthe said condition was complied with and according to theappellant, the second part of the condition was alsosubstantially complied with by tendering the rent, which wasdeclined by the respondent herein/plaintiff. Under suchcircumstances, the respondent/plaintiff has filed M.P.No.1/2009in S.A.No.1316/2008 for vacating the above said order of interimstay. 6. When both the stay petition and the vacate staypetition came up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of thecourt that the second appeal involved a substantial question oflaw as to the maintainability of the suit and that hence thesecond appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.Accordingly, the second appeal itself was heard and the followingjudgment is pronounced.7. The defendant in the original suit, who suffered a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decree for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rentand recovery of mesne profits before the trial court which cameto be confirmed by the lower appellate court, is the appellant inthe second appeal. The respondent in the second appeal is theplaintiff in the original suit, who proved to be successfulbefore the trial court and the lower appellate court. Therespondent/plaintiff is Sree Pravaraswamy Devasthanam representedby its hereditary Managing Trustee C.Balaji. Admittedly, theappellant/defendant was a lessee under the respondent herein/plaintiff in respect of the suit property, in which a oldstructure was standing at the time of inception of the lease.Subsequently, with the consent of the lessor, namely therespondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant put up a puccaconstruction, which is in existence as on today in the suitproperty spending his own funds for the said construction.However, it is claimed by the respondent/plaintiff that there wasa specific agreement to the effect that the appellant/defendant,on termination of lease, should hand over the building alsowithout claiming any compensation for the same and that there wasa condition restraining the user of the property to the effectthat it should be used only for the residential purpose of therespondent/plaintiff or by his sub-lessees in case it is sublet,for their own residential purposes. Claiming that the propertywas used as a lodge, as against the agreement between theparties, the respondent/plaintiff seems to have issued a noticeunder Ex.A2 terminating the tenancy and requiring theappellant/defendant to hand over possession and pay arrears ofrent as well as damages for use and occupation. The said noticewas received by the appellant/defendant as evidenced by Ex.A3-Acknowledgment Card. Thereafter, the parties seem to have beenlitigating in the High court and in the City Civil Court byfiling writ petitions and suits. At last, the present suit cameto be filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the reliefs indicatedsupra. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, thefollowing questions were framed as substantial questions of law:-i)Whether the Lower Appellate Court is rightin holding that the term of lease under anunregistered lease deed executed in presentcould be enforced?iii)Whether the Lower Appellate Court isright in not considering the writtenpermission under Ex.B1 and 2, marked inadditional evidence before the appellatecourt, especially when such permission tobuild on the property cannot be revokedunder Section 60 of the Easement Act?v)Whether termination of the lease in respect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the superstructure which admittedly wasconstructed by the defendant, is valid,especially when no deed of transfer of suchimmovable property has been registered bythe defendant in favour of the plainitiff?vii)Whether the suit is maintainable by aprivate trust, in view of the prohibitionunder Section 10 of the Tamil NaduBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960?9. Out of the above said questions framed assubstantial questions of law, there is a patent error in thefourth question, which has been framed on the assumption that therespondent/plaintiff trust is a private trust according to thepleadings. On the other hand, in paragraph 4 of the plaint, ithas been averred in clear terms without any scope for ambiguitythat the plaintiff is a public Hindu Religious and CharitableTrust and is therefore exempted under Section 29 of the TamilNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 read with TamilNadu Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.2000 Home dated 16.08.1976.The appellant herein/defendant has also stated in paragraph 3 ofhis written statement that the plaintiff temple comes under thepurview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Boardand hence the plaintiff temple cannot maintain the suit withoutthe authority of the Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsBoard. However, in the next paragraph itself, namely paragraphfour of the written statement, the appellant/defendant has statedthat Thiru Balaji, who claims to be a hereditary trustee of theplaintiff temple, did raise a contention before the HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Board that the plaintifftemple was a private trust and hence the Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Board had no right of control over themanagement of the temple and that in view of such a stand takenby Thiru C.Balaji, who has filed the suit on behalf of theplaintiff Devasthanam, the maintainability of the plaintiff suitshould be negatived as the plaintiff temple is not exempted underSection 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1960. 10. In paragraph 3 of his written statement, theappellant/defendant has taken a stand that the suit is notmaintainable since the plaintiff Devasthanam is a Hindu PublicReligious Trust coming under the control of the Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments Board. But, in paragraph 4 of thewritten statement, he has taken a different stand that the suitis not maintainable in view of the stand taken by the trustee ofthe plaintiff Deveasthanam, who claimed before the HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Authorities that theplaintiff Devasthanam is a private trust. It is the contentionraised by the appellant/defendant in paragraph 4 of the written https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statement that the exemption provided under Section 29 of theTamil Nadu Buildings (Rent and Lease Control) Act, 1960 is notapplicable to the plaintiff Devasthanam in view of such apeculiar stand taken by the trustee before the Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments Authorities. Therefore, the followingtwo additional substantial questions of law are framed.1) Whether the suit is barred under Section108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, 1959?2) Whether the suit is not maintainable evenif it is assumed that the plaintiff institution isnot a public religious institution?11. There is no evidence, either oral or documentary,to show that the plaintiff Devasthanam is a private trust, whichdo not come under the purview of the provisions of the Tamil NaduHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. On theother hand, the above said contention of the appellantherein/defendant seems to be based on the principle of estoppel.But, there cannot be any estoppel against a statute. In thiscase, the respondent herein/plaintiff has taken a concrete standthat the plaintiff Devasthanam is a Hindu Public Religiousinstitution and hence exempted from the purview of the Tamil NaduBuildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1960 as per Section 29 ofthe said Act. The said contention of the plaintiff also has beenadmitted by the appellant/defendant in paragraph 3 of his writtenstatement. When that being so, the trial court seems to haveembarked upon a rowing enquiry as to whether the plaintiffDevasthanam is a public trust or private trust. 12. Despite the admission made and despite the factthat the parties have not produced any order passed by theauthorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, 1959 to the effect that the plaintiff Devasthanamis not a public Hindu Religious institution, the learned trialjudge seems to have proceeded to assume that the plaintiffDevasthanam is a private trust simply because no Administrator orExecutive Officer was appointed to the plaintiff Devasthanam bythe Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Authorities and theplaintiff Devasthanam is managed by the hereditary trustees.There is no iota of evidence to arrive at such a conclusion thatthe plaintiff Devasthanam is a private temple, which fallsoutside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowment Act, 1959. Hence the finding to the effectthat it is a private trust is a perverse finding, liable to beinterfered with. 13. The further blender committed by the trial judge isfound in the closing lines of paragraph 6 of the judgment of thetrial court. For better appreciation, the same is extracted here https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under:-"thjpapd; nfhapy; ,e;J rka mwepiyaMl;rpj;Jiwapd; eph;thfj;jpd; fPH; ,Ue;J te;jhYk;.thjp nfhapy; eph;thfk; mjd; guk;giu jh;kfh;j;jhrp/ghyh$p vd;gthpd; jiyikapd; fPH;jhd; bray;gl;LtUfpwJ vd;gJ bjhpatUfpwJ/ thjp nfhapypy;elj;jg;gLfpd;w cw;rt';fSf;fhd bryt[j;bjhiffs;kw;Wk; fzf;F tHf;Ffs; midj;Jk; ,e;J rkamwepiya Jiw Ml;rpapd; fz;fhzpg;gpd; fPH;te;jhYk;. thjp nfhapy; eph;thfk; ghyh$[p vd;gtuJjiyikapd; fPH;jhd; bray;gl;L tUfpwJ/ thjp nfhapy;jdpahh; nfhapyhf ,Ue;jhYk;. my;yJ ,e;J rkaj;ijrhh;e;j bghJf;nfhapyhf ,Ue;jhYk; ,e;J kjr; rhh;g[s;s nfhapy;fs;. epWtd';fs; my;yJ fl;lisfs;midj;Jk; jkpH;ehL thlif fl;Lg;ghL rl;lj;jpypUe;Jtpyf;F mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjw;fhd murhizvz;jhd;/2000. 16/08/1976 njjpa[ilajhFk;/"The said observation will make it obvious that the learned trialjudge has failed to give a clear finding as to whether theplaintiff Devasthanam is a Public Religious Trust coming underthe purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, 1959 or a private temple, which does not comeunder the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, 1959. 14. The learned trial judge has also committed a graveerror in holding that a Religious Trust, whether public orprivate, is exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as per G.O.Ms.No.2000 dated16.08.1976. Without even reading the said government order, thelearned trial judge has gone to the extent of stating that allthe properties of religious Trust, whether they are public orprivate, are exempted from the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It shows non-application ofmind on the part of the learned trial judge. The learned lowerappellate judge has also failed to notice such a grave errorcommitted by the learned trial judge and blind-foldedly confirmedthe judgment of the trial court. G.O.Ms.No.2000 Home dated16.08.1976 reads as follows:-"In exercise of the powers conferred underSection 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease andRent Control Act), 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of1960) and in supersession of the Home DepartmentNotification No.II(2)/HO/3811/74, dated the 12thAugust, 1974, published at page 444 of Part II- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette,dated the 21st August, 1974, the Governor of TamilNadu hereby exempts all the buildings owned by theTamil Nadu Hindu, Christian and Muslim religiouspublic trusts and public charitable trusts fromall the provisions of the said Act."In the very same GO, by notification No.II(2)/HO/6060/76, all buildings owned by all Government undertakingsincluding Government Companies registered under the IndianCompanies Act, 1956 (Central Act I of 1956) and by all the Co-operative Societies were exempted from the provisions of theTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 15. A reading of the G.O.No.2000 of 1976 dated16.08.1976 will show that only the buildings belonging to publicreligious trusts and public charitable trusts are exempted fromthe provisions of the Rent Control Act. The learned trial judgeand the learned lower appellate judge have failed to notice thesame and in particular, the learned trial judge erroneously heldthat private trusts were also exempted from the provisions of theRent Control Act.16. In addition to that, there are clinching documentsto show that the plaintiff Devasthanam has been recognised andtreated by the Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsDepartment, as a hindu public religious endowment. Ex.A1 is thelease agreement. The last paragraph of the lease agreement readsas follows:-"If in - Event the lessor get permissionfrom the commissioner H.R. & C.E. Departmentfor the sale of the above said property theFirst Auction (sic option) will be given topurchase the above said property to the lesseeat the prevailing market rate."The said clause numbered as "14" in the lease deed willmake it clear that the permission of the Commissioner, HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Department was needed forthe sale of the suit property belonging to the plaintiffDevasthanam, which shall give a clear inference that theplaintiff Devasthanam is a Hindu public religious institution, asper the definition found in Section 6(18) of the Tamil Nadu HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Act. Therefore, it is quiteobvious that the suit property stands exempted from theprovisions of the Rent Control Act by virtue of the notificationissued under Section 29 of the said Act, namely G.O.Ms.No.2000 of1976. 17. Though it was not specifically pleaded before thecourts below, with the permission of the court, the appellant has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ raised a legal issue as to the maintainability of a suit by apublic religious institution against a lessee after terminationof the lease for eviction (recovery of possession). The learnedcounsel for the appellant argued that specific provisions forrecovery of possession of the properties belonging to publicHindu charitable or religious institution or endowment have beenprovided in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, 1959 and hence the suit filed by the plaintiffDevasthanam for recovery of possession of the land and buildingin the Civil Court is not maintainable and that the same standsbarred by Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, 1959, 1959. Section 108 of the TamilNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 providesa bar of suits in respect of administration or management ofreligious institutions or any other matter or dispute fordetermining or deciding which provision has been made in the Act.The section reads as follows:-"108. Bar of suits in respect ofadministration or management of religiousinstitutions, etc.- No suit or other legalproceeding in respect of the administration ormanagement of a religious institution or anyother matter or dispute for determining ordeciding which provision is made in this Actshall be instituted in any Court of Law, exceptunder, and in conformity with, the provisions ofthis Act."18. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel forthe appellant, provisions have been made in the Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments Act for the eviction of the"encroachers" of the land or building belonging to the charitableor religious institution or endowment. Section 78 says that theAssistant Commissioner having jurisdiction either suo motu orupon a complaint made by a trustee that any person encroachedupon any land, building, tank, well, spring or water-course orany space wherever situated belonging to the religiousinstitution or endowment to report the fact together withrelevant particulars to the Joint Commissioner havingjurisdiction over the division in which religious institution orendowment is situated and if the Joint Commissioner, on a perusalof the report sent by the Assistant Commissioner, finds thatthere is a prima-facie case of encroachment, he shall issue anotice to the encroacher calling upon him to show cause before acertain date as to why an order requiring him to remove theencroachment should not be made. The section also empowers theJoint Commissioner to pass an order, after considering theobjections, if any, of the encroacher, for the removal of suchencroachment and directing him to deliver possession of theproperty. The Section also gives power to the Joint Commissionerto order the encroacher to deposit such amount, as may be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ specified by him. For better appreciation, the entire Section 78of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 is extracted here under.78. Encroachment by persons on land orbuilding belonging to charitable or religiousinstitution or endowment and the eviction ofencroachers. - (1) Where the Assistant Commissionerhaving jurisdiction either suo motu or upon acomplaint made by the trustee has reason to believethat any person has encroached upon (hereinafter inthis section referred to as "encroacher") any land,building, tank, well, spring or water-course or anyspace wherever situation belonging to the religiousinstitution or endowment (hereinafter referred toas "the property"), he shall report the facttogether with relevant particulrs to the JointCommissioner having jurisdiction over the divisionin which the religious institution or endowment issituated.Explanation. - For the purpose of thissection, the expression "encroacher" shall mean anyperson who unauthorisedly occupies any tank, well,spring or water-course or any property and toinclude -(a) any person who is in occupation ofproperty without the approval of the competentauthority (sanctioning lease or mortgage orlicence) and(b) any person who continues to remain in theproperty after the expiry or termination orcancellation of the lease, mortgage or licencegranted to him.(2) Where, on a perusal of the report receivedby him under sub-section (1), the JointCommissioner finds that there is a prima facie caseof encroachment, he shall cause to be served uponthe encroacher a notice specifying the particularsof the encroachment and calling on him to showcause before a certain date why an order requiringhim to remove the encroachment before the datespecified on the notice should not made. A copy ofthe notice shall also be sent to the trustees ofthe religious institution or endowment concerned.(3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2)shall be served in such manner as may beprescribed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (4) Where after considering the objections, ifany, of the encroacher received during the periodspecified in the notice referred to in sub-section(2) and after conducting such enquiry as may beprescribed, the Joint Commissioner is satisfiedthat there has been an encroachment, he may byorder and for reasons to be recorded, require theencroacher to remove the encroachment and deliverpossession of the property (land or building orspace) encroached upon to the trustee before thedate specified in such order.(5) During the pendency of the proceeding, theJoint Commissioner shall order the encroacher todeposit such amount as may be specified by him inconsideration of the use and occupation of theproperties in question in the manner prescribed.19. Section 79 deals with the mode of eviction when theencroachment is not removed by the person, as directed by theJoint Commissioner. Section 79 also provides that a personaggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner under Section 78(4), can institute a suit in a court to establish that thereligious institution or endowment has no title to the property.While preserving such a right of an alleged encroacher, it hasalso been provided in Section 79 itself that no suit shall beinstituted by a person who is let into the possession of theproperty by or who is a lessee, licensee or mortgagee of thereligious institution or endowment. Section 79 of The Tamil NaduHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 reads asfollows:-79. Mode of eviction on failure of removalof the encroachment as directed by the JointCommissioner:- Where within the period specifiedin the order under sub-section (4) of Section 78,the encroacher has not removed the encroachmentand has not vacated the property, the AssistantCommissioner having jurisdiction over thedivision may remove the encroachment and obtainpossession of the property encroached upon,taking such police assistance as may benecessary. Any police officer whose help isrequired for this purpose shall under necessaryhelp to the Assistant Commissioner.(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall preventany person aggrieved by the order of the JointCommissioner under sub-section (4) of section 78from instituting a suit in a Court to establishthat the religious institution or endowment hasno title to the property: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that no Civil Court shall takecognizance of any suit instituted after sixmonths from the date of receipt of the orderunder sub-section (4) of section 78:Provided further that no such suit shall beinstituted by a person who is let into possessionof the property or who is a lessee, licensee ormortgagee, of the religious institution orendowment.(3) No injunction shall be granted by anyCourt in respect of any proceeding taken or aboutto be taken by the Joint Commissioner undersection 78.Similar provisions have been made in section 80 for theeviction of lessees, licensees or mortgagees.20. A conjoint reading of sections 78, 79 and 108 ofthe Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 will make it clear that a suit by a Hinddu public religiousinstitution for recovery of property of the religious institutioncannot be straight away filed in a Civil Court. As provisionshave been made for the removal of encroachment by the JointCommissioner under Section 78, the bar provided under Section 108of the Act will come into play to prevent a suit being filedstraight away in a Civil Court for the recovery of the property.A meek attempt was made by the learned counsel for therespondent/plaintiff by raising a contention that Section 78 ofthe Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 was meant for evicting encroachers and not lessors, whoselease have been terminated. The explanation appended to sub-section (1) of Section 78 shall be the fitting answer to theabove said submission made by the learned counsel for therespondent. As per the explanation, the term "encroacher" shallinclude any person who continues to remain in the property afterthe expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgageor license granted to him. Therefore, it is quite obvious fromclause (b) of the explanation appended to section 78(1) of theH.R. & C.E. Act, that a person who continues to remain in theproperty after the termination of the lease also comes under thedefinition of "encroacher" for the removal of whom, the JointCommissioner can pass an order under sub-section (4) of Section78. 21. Since a specific provision has been made for theeviction of the encroacher, as rightly contended by the learnedcounsel for the appellant/defendant, no suit can be directlyinstituted in any Court of law except under and in conformitywith the provisions of the Act, as per section 108 of the Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Apartfrom the provision for eviction of the encroacher, provisionshave also been made under sub-section (5) of section 78 fordepositing the amount determined by the Joint Commissioner foruse and occupation, pending disposal of the proceedings foreviction under the above said section. Section 79(c) alsoprovides for recovery of the amount due to the religiousinstitution as if it were an arrears of land revenue. But thesaid section provides a non obstante clause that such recoveriescan be made without prejudice to any other mode of recovery. Asimple suit for recovery of arrears of rent may be held notbarred. But the present case has been filed for recovery ofpossession as the principal relief and the prayers regardingrecovery of rent and damages for use and occupation are madeconsequential to the main relief. Pending the proceedings,entire arrears of rent has been collected. The recovery ofdamages for use and occupation depends upon the question of validtermination of the lease. Based on the alleged termination oflease, recovery of possession has been made by that lease.Principal relief and the prayer for mesne profit is madeconsequential to the said principal relief. Therefore, thiscourt comes to the conclusion that the contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellant that the suit is not maintainable, asit has been straight away filed in a Civil Court for recovery ofpossession of the property, whereas provision for the same hasbeen made in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowment Act, 1959 under Section 78, has got to be countenanced.22. Even though there are indications in the lease deeditself that the plaintiff Devasthanam is a public institutioncoming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the plaintiff, in fact, hasmade an averment in the plaint that the plaintiff Devasthanam isa public Hindu religious and charitable trust and hence exemptedunder section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and RentControl) Act, 1960, P.W.1 seems to have led evidence contra tothe pleading by stating that the plaintiff Devasthanam is aprivate trust and hence he did not get the permission of theHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department forinstituting the suit. That is the reason why the courts belowhave failed to determine whether plaintiff Devasthanam is apublic religious institution or private religious institution andon the other hand, erroneously held that even if it is a privatereligious institution, its properties shall stand exempted undersection 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1960. We have already seen supra that G.O.Ms.No.2000/1976dated 16.08.1976 exemps properties of the public religious orcharitable institutions or endowments alone from the purview ofthe Rent Control Act. Even if it is assumed without acceptingthat the plaintiff Devasthanam is not a public religiousinstitution, the exemption under Section 29 of the Rent ControlAct shall not be applicable to the property, as the lease at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inception was not in respect of the land alone, but in respect ofthe land and the building which were existing on the date oflease. In either case, the suit filed directly in the CivilCourt for eviction shall not be maintainable. The questionframed as substantial question of law 3 and 1 and 2, theadditional substantial questions of law regarding maintainabilityof the suit is answered accordingly. In view of the same, theother questions framed as substantial questions of law do notrequire any adjudication as the above said decision goes to theroot of the case.23. For all the reasons stated above, this court comesto the conclusion that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffinstitution is not maintainable and hence on that score alone,the second appeal shall succeed and the judgments and decrees ofthe courts below are liable to be set aside. However, by way ofclarification it is pointed out that the respondent/plaintiff isentitled to invoke the powers of the Joint Commissioner, H.R. &C.E. under the provisions of the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959.24. In the result, the second appeal is allowed and thedecree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lowerappellate court is set aside. O.S.No.2711/2000 on the file of IIIAssistant Judge, City Civil Court is dismissed as notmaintainable. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarasrTo1) The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai+1cc to Mr.W.C.Thiruvengadam,Advocate Sr 25277+1cc to Mr.C.Sreedharan, Advocate Sr 25279KA(CO)km/19.5.S.A.No.1316 of 2008