Judgment 1. The unsuccessful defendant has filed the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.82 of 1985, dated 5.2.1986 on the file of District Court, Erode, confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.2150 of 1981, dated 23.4.1984 on the file of Principal District Munsifs Court, Erode. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The suit properties had been treated as temple poromboke and enjoyed by the plaintiff for centuries. The trustees of the temple leased out the vacant site item 1 to the defendant originally on a monthly rent of Rs.10 and later raised to Rs.20. The defendant put up a superstructure in a portion of the same and he is in possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff also filed R.C.O.P.No.16 of 1973 to evict the defendant from the holding and the same was allowed. Subsequently, the defendant filed O.S.No.5 17 of 1976 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Erode and the suit was decreed with a direction that the plaintiff herein has to move the civil court for possession independently. The plaintiff requires the property for its own use. Valid notice terminating tenancy was also issued. There were proceedings before the Revenue Department also, calling upon the defendant not to put up any construction in any portion. The plaintiff is entitled to the rent due for the last 3 years. The suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff temple is the owner of the suit properties directing the defendant to deliver possession of items 1 to 3 after removal of superstructure, grant permanent injunction and the plaintiff also claimed arrears of rent and future rent. 3. The defendant resisted the suit, contending that the plaintiff has not issued a valid notice to quit and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The plaintiff is not entitled to fall back upon the alleged notice sent by him long back. The revenue officials have issued ‘B’ memo notices to the defendant treating him as a trespasser and penal assessment was also collected from him. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. 4. The trial court framed 6 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked and P.Ws.l and 2 were examined. On the side of the defendant, Exs.B-1 to B-12 were marked and D.W. 1 was examined. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. 4. The trial court framed 6 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked and P.Ws.l and 2 were examined. On the side of the defendant, Exs.B-1 to B-12 were marked and D.W. 1 was examined. Exs.C-1 and C-2 were marked on the side of the court. The trial court decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed. Aggrieved against this, the defendant has come forward with the present second appeal. 5. The defendant/appellant raised the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether the courts below failed to see that the Government of Tamil Nadu is a proper and necessary party for proper determination of the issue for the relief of declaration is concerned and the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. (2) Whether the courts below are right in holding that the notice issued in the year 1972 is proper and quite legal notice for the purpose of instituting a suit in the year 1981. (3) Whether the courts below are right in granting the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction while the construction put up is very much with the knowledge and permission of the plaintiff. (4) Whether the findings of the courts below that the suit property is bonafidely required for the personal use of the plaintiff temple is correct in the absence of anything to prove the bona fide and despite the evidence adduced to show the lack of bona fide. (5) Whether courts below have not considered the fact of issue of ‘B’ memos to the defendant by the Government of Tamilnadu in proper perspective which is essential for the proper disposal of the issue for the relief of declaration. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and delivery of possession, (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. and (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get arrears of rent as well as future rent. 7. Points:The suit properties consists of items No. 1 to 3 in Survey No.791/2A of Perundurai Village. Item No.6 of the properties is a vacant site situated on the north of items 2 and 3. and (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get arrears of rent as well as future rent. 7. Points:The suit properties consists of items No. 1 to 3 in Survey No.791/2A of Perundurai Village. Item No.6 of the properties is a vacant site situated on the north of items 2 and 3. They were classified as ‘temple poromboke’ and the then trustees of the temple leased out item 1 of the properties to the defendant long back on a monthly rent of Rs. 10 and it was later increased to Rs.20 per month. The defendant has not denied in the written statement about the tenancy. The plaintiff already filed R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1973 on the file of Rent Controller, Erode, for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and it was allowed ex parte. The defendant filed O.S.No.517 of 1976 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Erode, for a declaration that the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller is without jurisdiction and for a consequential injunction and the suit was decreed, and thereafter only, the plaintiffs has filed the suit, claiming the aforesaid reliefs. 8. There is clear evidence to the effect that the defendant took item No. 1 of the properties on lease from the trustees of the temple. The defendant had also paid rent for the site to the temple. There are arrears of rent for the subsequent periods. The notice under Ex.A-2 was issued in December, 1972 determining the tenancy of the defendant and calling upon him to vacate the premises within a particular date. The defendant sent a reply under Ex.A-10, wherein he admitted having taken the vacant site on lease. Now, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property, and, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief. In short, according to the defendant the Government is having paramount title to the site and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file any suit. He also pressed into service Exs.B-1 to B-6 ‘B’ memos issued to him as a trespasser by putting up a superstructure in the property. Exs.B-7 to B-11 are the kist receipt issued to him relating to the payment of some amount for the occupation. He also pressed into service Exs.B-1 to B-6 ‘B’ memos issued to him as a trespasser by putting up a superstructure in the property. Exs.B-7 to B-11 are the kist receipt issued to him relating to the payment of some amount for the occupation. It is necessary to state that no ‘B’ memo was issued for the earlier period prior to the filing of rent control petition. Moreover, the plaintiff temple has also moved Revenue Divisional Officer¡ Erode, and an order was passed under Ex.A-4 to the effect that the suit property is a temple poromboke. The plaintiff also moved the Tahsildar, Perundurai, and under Ex.A-5, it is stated that since the Revenue Divisional Officer has already passed an order, no further direction is necessary. It is, therefore, clear that the Government has conceded the rights of the plaintiff to the suit property and, as such, there is absolutely no force in the contention of the defendant. 9. The learned counsel for the defendant mainly contended that there is no valid notice to suit issued on behalf of the’ plaintiff temple and the notice contemplated under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act ought to have been issued and as it is not done in the case, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A-2 notice sent on 23.12.1972. No doubt, the suit was filed only in the year 1981. Since earlier to that, rent control proceedings were instituted and after getting an ex parte order of eviction, it is admitted that the defendant filed the suit for declaration to set aside the order and obtained a decree. Thereafter, only, the plaintiff has filed the suit. It is specifically stated under Ex.A-2, that the tenancy has been terminated and the defendant was also called upon to vacate and deliver possession after removal of the super-structure within a particular period. Simply because, the notice was issued in 1972 and immediately before filing the suit, no notice to quit was issued, the defendant cannot succeed. When once the plaintiff has determined the tenancy and issued notice under Ex.A-2 followed by a rent control petition, there is absolutely no necessity or mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to issue another notice, for taking proceedings against the defendant. When once the plaintiff has determined the tenancy and issued notice under Ex.A-2 followed by a rent control petition, there is absolutely no necessity or mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to issue another notice, for taking proceedings against the defendant. When the order of eviction has been passed, the tenancy comes to an end and there will not be any relationship of landlord and tenant. Considering the fact, that notice to quit contemplated under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was already given under Ex.A-2 there is no force in the contention of the defendant. Moreover, both the courts below have given a concurrent finding regarding this aspect and the defendant is not in a position to point out any infirmity, calling for any interference and, as such, the judgments have to be confirmed. 10. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Time for delivery two months.