1. The Appellants in both the Appeals are the Tenants in respect of the property owned by the Respondent/Plaintiff. With the consent of Counsel for both the parties a common Judgment is rendered.
2. The Appellants in S.A No. 585 of 2010 are admittedly Tenants of the land belonging to the Respondent-Temple. The Respondent-Temple entered into a registered Agreement with the Appellants and permitted the Appellants to be in possession of the vacant land and as the Appellants started construction in the suit property against the express terms of the Agreement, notice was issued calling upon the Appellants not to put up construction and to vacate and hand over possession of the property and as the Appellants failed to vacate and also proceeded with the construction, the Suit was filed for recovery of possession of the property.
3. The Trial Court in S.A No. 585 of 2010 dismissed the Suit holding that the Respondent-Temple is not entitled to the relief of eviction as the Respondent-Temple failed to prove the allegation that the Appellant has committed default in payment of rent and the First Appellate Court in S.A No. 585 of 2010 reversed the finding of the Trial Court and allowed the Appeal and decreed the Suit.
4. In respect of S.A No. 1024 of 2011 both the Courts below concurrently held that the Respondent-Temple has issued notice of termination and as the Appellants acted contrary to the terms of the tenancy, is liable to be evicted and they are also not entitled to claim any compensation for the construction put up by them. Hence, these Second Appeals are filed.
5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that admittedly the Appellants have put up construction at heavy costs and that was also with the knowledge of the Respondent-Temple and therefore, the Respondent-Temple is bound to pay compensation for the construction put up by them and without paying compensation the Respondent-Temple is not entitled to evict the Appellants. It was further contended that admittedly the vacant site was taken on lease and the Appellants have put up construction and therefore they are entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act and though their Application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act was dismissed, the notice to quit was not issued as per Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act and therefore, the Respondent-Temple is not entitled to the relief of eviction. The learned Counsel for the Appellants relied upon Section 34(c) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act to contend that as per Section 34(c) of the Act, the Commissioner has to determine the improvements or the cost of construction made by the Tenant and without determining the same, the eviction order cannot be made.
6. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants. Admittedly, the Appellants filed Application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act claiming benefits under the Act and the Application was dismissed holding that the Respondent is a Public Religious and Charitable Organization and exempted from the provision of the said Act. That order has become final. Once the Respondent Temple is given exemption under the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act there is no need to follow the provision as stated therein for evicting the Tenant. Therefore, the contention of the Appellants that notice under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act was not given and therefore the Suit is not maintainable cannot be accepted.
7. The another contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the Appellants/Tenants have taken the vacant site on lease and thereafter with the knowledge of the Respondent-Temple they have put up construction at heavy costs and as per the agreement also they were permitted to put up construction and therefore the Respondent-Temple without paying the cost of construction is not entitled to evict the Appellants. The contention of the Appellants cannot be accepted. As per the agreement, the Appellants were permitted to put up only a hut in the suit property and it was further provided that at the time of vacating, they must remove the hut and they must hand over vacant possession. Therefore, as per the Agreement of Lease the Appellants were only permitted to put up a hut and no permission was given to them to construct a building in the suit property and therefore the construction by the Appellants was against the terms of the tenancy. Further under Section 34(c) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, if any lesseee put up any construction in accordance with the terms of the agreement or with the permission of the Commissioner, there shall be paid an amount for the building or superstructure. In this case as stated supra, as per the Agreement the Appellants were not permitted to put up any construction and they were only permitted to put up a hut. Any construction made by the Appellants, is contrary to the terms of the Agreement and it is not the case of the Appellants that after getting permission from the Respondent-Temple they put up construction. Hence, the Appellants are not entitled to claim the value of the construction under Section 34(c) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act. As valid notice was given and the tenancy was terminated, the Respondent-Temple is entitled to vacate the Appellants and considering this aspect, the Courts below rightly decreed the Suit. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact of both the Courts below and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeals and the Second Appeals are dismissed.
8. In the result, the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below are confirmed and the Second Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition are also closed.