Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1471 (MAD)

Athi Puranam Pillai (died) v. K. Veeraswami

2012-03-22

M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/plaintiff (during his lifetime) has focused the present Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1999 in A.S. No. 148 of 1998 passed by the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 4.3.1998 in O.S. No. 207 of 1994 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Mannargudi. 2. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the appellant/plaintiff died on 9.11.2001 and later, the 2nd and 3rd appellants have been brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased sole appellant/plaintiff, as per order dated 2.9.2004 passed in C.M.P. No. 14110 of 2004. 3. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, while passing the judgment in A.S. No. 148 of 1998 on 31.3.1999 (in the Appeal filed by the respondent/appellant), has among other things observed that ‘though the respondent (plaintiff/1st appellant since deceased) is a tenant of the suit property, the appellant (respondent/defendant) is not a Sub-tenant under him for the suit property and that the respondent (plaintiff - later deceased) should file the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property treating the appellant (respondent/defendant) as trespasser. But, the suit for recovery of possession is on the basis of tenancy. Such, a suit cannot be said as maintainable etc., and allowed the Appeal without costs, thereby, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in O.S. No. 207 of 1994 dated 4.3.1998 and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the 1st appellant/plaintiff (later died). 4. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 to 4 Issues have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the plaintiff, Witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-4 have been marked. On the side of the respondent/defendant, Witnesses D.W.1 to D.W.3 have been examined and Exhibit B-1 to Exhibit B-4 have been marked. 5. In First Appeal i.e., A.S. No. 111 of 1996, On the side of the respondent/plaintiff P.W.1 has been examined and no documents have been marked. On the side of the appellant/respondent/defendant, D.W.1 has been examined and Exhibit B-5 and Exhibit B-6 have been marked by consent. 6. 5. In First Appeal i.e., A.S. No. 111 of 1996, On the side of the respondent/plaintiff P.W.1 has been examined and no documents have been marked. On the side of the appellant/respondent/defendant, D.W.1 has been examined and Exhibit B-5 and Exhibit B-6 have been marked by consent. 6. The trial Court, on an analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a categorical conclusion that Exhibit A-3 Notice dated 8.3.1994 issued on behalf of the plaintiff is a valid one and that the respondent/defendant has not established his plea of payment of arrears of rent of Rs. 360/- by filing a document and further, held that the claim made by the plaintiff that the respondent/defendant has to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 360/-, is a correct one and directed the respondent/defendant to pay the said amount to the plaintiff and accordingly, passed a Decree. Moreover, it has granted three months time to the respondent/defendant to hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff, from the date of passing the judgment. It has also awarded a future relief of Rs. 100/- to be paid by the respondent/defendant to the 1st appellant/plaintiff (later deceased). 7. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law for determination. “(1) Whether after entering a specific finding in favour of the party in a judgment, the Court can enter a directly contrary finding in the same judgment? (2) Whether any triable issue arises as to the existence of a tenancy for the Court to decide, when the same is categorically admitted by the Party concerned in its pleadings itself?” 8. The Contentions. Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 1 and 2: According to the Learned counsel for the appellants, the Learned First Appellate Authority should have seen that in the grounds of A.S. No. 148 of 1998 filed by the respondent/defendant, there is a categorical admission that he is a tenant under the deceased plaintiff viz., the 1st appellant. Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 1 and 2: According to the Learned counsel for the appellants, the Learned First Appellate Authority should have seen that in the grounds of A.S. No. 148 of 1998 filed by the respondent/defendant, there is a categorical admission that he is a tenant under the deceased plaintiff viz., the 1st appellant. Furthermore, in the First Appeal, Memo of Grounds in A.S. No. 148 of 1998, the contention of the respondent/defendant is that by reason of such tenancy, the Civil Court will not have any jurisdiction to hear the suit and it is to be heard by the Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 9. The Learned counsel for the Appellants urges before this Court that the legal notice issued to the respondent/defendant treating him as trespasser has been wrongly issued and that the said notice has been superseded by Exhibit A-3 Notice dated 8.3.1994, for which the respondent/defendant has not cared to send any reply which tacitly exhibits that the case of the Appellants have been admitted. 10. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the appellants that in any event, the First Appellate Authority should not have interfered with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court in the main suit. 11. In response, the Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant (appellant in A.S. No. 148 of 1998 before the First Appellate Court) submits that the First Appellate Court has taken the available materials on record and has come to a just conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff (deceased First Appellant) is not maintainable because he has filed a suit before the trial Court for recovery of possession, on the basis of tenancy and in fact, he should have filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, treating the respondent/defendant as a trespasser and rightly allowed the Appeal without costs, thereby, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit, which need not be interfered with by this Court. 12. For fuller and better appreciation of the merits of the case, this Court makes an useful reference to the evidence of witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W.1 to D.W.3, in the interest of Justice. 13. 12. For fuller and better appreciation of the merits of the case, this Court makes an useful reference to the evidence of witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W.1 to D.W.3, in the interest of Justice. 13. It is the evidence of P.W.1 (plaintiff since deceased) that the suit property is in Vaduvur and he got the same from Srinivasa Iyer and prior to Srinivasa Iyer, the property has come from Ramasamy and that the property belongs to the family trust of Ramasamy and that the property has been given to him during the year 1930 and has given Exhibit A-1 Registered Rent Chit to Ramasamy in which there is a mention of ‘4ma‘ and in the said ‘4ma‘, he has constructed a Rice Mill on the Northern side and the respondent/defendant has been given 20 Kulies of property on the Southern side which is in his enjoyment and the rent of Rs. 10/- per month has been paid by him and that he has issued Exhibit A-2 Notice dated 2.3.1994 to the respondent/defendant, directing him to vacate from the suit property for which he has given Exhibit A-3 Reply Notice dated 8.3.1994 and again, on 31.3.1997, he has issued Exhibit A-4 Notice demanding rent from the respondent/defendant and asking him to vacate the portion occupied by him, but he has not vacated and he has constructed a small thatched building and doing the job and apart from the suit property, there are trust properties and out of the income in the temple, they have performed 3, 4 Mandakappadi festivals and since the respondent/defendant has not vacated from the suit property, he has to pay the rent of Rs. 360/- and also to hand over vacant possession. 14. P.W.1 (in his cross examination) has deposed that the suit property is a trust property and that he has not seen the Trust Deed and he does not know as to who has created the Trust and that the suit land is ‘3 ma‘ and odd and that he has agreed to be a Lessee during the year 1930 with Ramasamy Iyengar but, no document has been entered into between them and during the year 1930, he has constructed the Mill for which he has obtained the license but, he has not produced the same into Court and further, he has not produced any document to show that he has enjoyed the property. 15. 15. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that he has agreed to pay the money during the 6th month with Ramasamy Iyengar and there is accounts for the payment of monthly rent and the annual rent and the rent has been collected personally and that he has not produced any accounts into Court and that he has known the respondent/defendant‘s father well and he does not know whether the respondent/defendant‘s father has been conducting business before him and the respondent/defendant‘s father has not been given the suit place and moreover, the respondent/defendant‘s father has conducted a bamboo shop in poramboke land and not in the suit property. 16. Proceeding further, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that the respondent/defendant or his father has agreed to be a tenant and that the respondent/defendant is running a shop for the past 8 years and he has put up a banthal and has created problems with him and also that, he has issued a notice through Tanjore advocate but, he has not produced the same into Court and that the respondent/defendant is in possession of 2500 feet and in between him and the respondent/defendant, there is a Rent Deed. 17. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that he knows about the suit property which has a family trust and the trust possesses four Acres of Nanja and one Acre of Punja land and the Trust has already been looked after by his father and after him, his brother Ramasamy has looked into the same and his brother died in the year 1967 and thereafter, he is the Trustee and he used to lease out the lands directly and to collect the lease amount and that the respondent/defendant in the year 1951 has made an arrangement with his father and the income will be met for Mandakappadi expense and that the respondent/defendant is in enjoyment of the property from the year 1951 and that they have not handed over the suit property to the respondent/defendant on lease and they have not appointed one Athimoolam as an agent and he has not been directed to collect the amount. 18. 18. D.W.1 (respondent/defendant) in his evidence has deposed that his father Kandasamy has been doing the business of collecting the Bamboo plaited Leaves (Moongil Keetu in Tamil) and used to lend them for hire and from the year 1963, he has been doing the bamboo business and the suit property belongs to Ramasamy Iyengar and from his father‘s period, he has been paying the tax for the property and Exhibit B-1ss are the Notices received by him for doing his business and he has remitted the Professional Tax as per Exhibit B-2ss and for the business, he has paid the license fees which is Exhibit B-3ss and with the plaintiff, he has not agreed to be a Lessee and apart from the place where he does his business in rest of the place, the plaintiff (later deceased) has been doing the business for running a Mill and the remaining portion remains as a barren land and his father during his lifetime has been paying a sum of Rs. 10/- and also, he has been presently paying a sum of Rs. 10/- and that the rent amount will be collected by one Iyer and that the plaintiff (later deceased) used to collect the same from him for which no receipt has been issued and 15 years have elapsed from the date of his father‘s death and that used to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff and for 7 or 8 years, the amount has been collected by the plaintiff but, no receipt has been issued and that he has not talked with the plaintiff and agreed to be the tenant and there is no enmity between the respondent and Iyer. 19. D.W.1 in his further evidence has also deposed that he does not know as to who is P.W.2 Srinivasa Iyengar and after the death of Ramasamy Iyengar, he does not know who has collected the amount in his family and that the plaintiff has installed the Rice Mill on the Northern side of the suit property and the rent of Rs. 10/- has been paid to the plaintiff. 20. D.W.1 (in his cross examination) has also deposed that he has not paid the rent with the plaintiff and it is incorrect to state that in the written statement, the rent has been paid to the plaintiff and that he has paid the rent with Jaganatha Iyengar. 21. 10/- has been paid to the plaintiff. 20. D.W.1 (in his cross examination) has also deposed that he has not paid the rent with the plaintiff and it is incorrect to state that in the written statement, the rent has been paid to the plaintiff and that he has paid the rent with Jaganatha Iyengar. 21. D.W.2 in his evidence has deposed that the respondent/defendant is doing the business connected with bamboo and he knows his father, who has also been doing the bamboo business and they have been doing the bamboo business for the past 30 years and that the plaintiff has been running a Mill and the plaintiff‘s father informed that the respondent/defendant‘s father has been paying a sum of Rs. 5/-. 22. D.W.3 in his evidence has deposed that he knows the respondent/defendant and his father and in the suit place, the respondent/defendant‘s father has been running the bamboo business and the respondent/defendant after his father‘s demise has been doing the bamboo business for the past 30 years and the respondent/defendant‘s father is doing the business belonging to the place of one Iyer and the respondent/defendant‘s father used to pay the rent at the time of Chithirai month festival but, he does not know the quantum of rent and the plaintiff has a Mill on Northern side of the suit property. 23. In the Plaint, the plaintiff (later deceased) has averred that an extent of 1 Acre and 34 Cents in R.S. No. 338/12-A, has been taken on Lease by him from the Owner and in that land, he has been granted a Lease of the Plaint schedule land alone to the respondent in or about the middle of the 1988 on a rent of Rs. 10/- per month. The respondent/defendant has put up a shed therein and has been conducting a business. 24. According to the appellants, from the inception, the respondent/defendant has never been regular in payment of rent from 1.2.1991 onwards, he has completely stopped the payment of rent and till 1.3.1994, he has been in arrears of Rs. 360/- which he has not paid inspite of repeated demands. 24. According to the appellants, from the inception, the respondent/defendant has never been regular in payment of rent from 1.2.1991 onwards, he has completely stopped the payment of rent and till 1.3.1994, he has been in arrears of Rs. 360/- which he has not paid inspite of repeated demands. The 1st appellant (plaintiff-since deceased) has issued a registered notice to quit to the respondent/defendant on 8.3.1994 terminating his tenancy with the end of 31.3.1994 and calling upon him to deliver the vacant possession on 1.4.1994 and in the meantime, to pay the arrears of rent. The respondent/defendant, who has received the said notice, has not either vacated the said property or paid the full balance. 25. Therefore, the suit has been laid by the plaintiff (since deceased) for recovery of vacant possession of the under mentioned property by the respondent/defendant with past and future mesne profit. The future mesne profit has been estimated at Rs. 100/- and the Court Fee of Rs. 8/- has been paid. The future mesne profits are also due till the date of delivery of possession. 26. In the Written Statement, the respondent/defendant has stated that his father even before 1960 in the suit property has been running a bamboo business and after the demise of his father, the respondent/defendant continues to do the bamboo business and in enjoyment of the same. Further, the suit property belongs to a trust and that Ramasamy Iyengar, Manager, has maintained the Trust property and the 1st appellant (plaintiff-deceased) has been the person, who has collected the lease amount and except that right to the suit property, he has no other right and that in the trust properties, the 1st appellant (plaintiff-deceased) has remained as a Lessee and therefore, the rent has been paid to him and the 1st appellant/plaintiff has informed the respondent/defendant that he will get the receipt to be obtained from the trust Manager Ramasamy Iyengar and as mentioned in the suit, there is no rent arrangement between the 1st appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant. 27. 27. The 1st appellant/plaintiff has issued various contradictory notices and in the notice dated 22.2.1994 issued by him, it is stated as if the respondent/defendant has encroached an extent of 1600 sq.ft by putting up a hut and later, in the notice issued on 8.3.1994, it is stated that the respondent/defendant has been wrongly mentioned as an encroacher and the respondent/defendant has been admitted as a tenant and the termination of tenancy ending 31.3.1994 as stated therein, is not an acceptable one. The notice dated 8.3.1994 cancelling the Rent Agreement is not a valid one and till February 1994, the ground rent for the suit place has been paid. The respondent/defendant is ready to pay the balance amount to the Managing Trustee. 28. Exhibit A-1 is the Rent Agreement dated 21.10.1951 entered into between Ramasamy Iyengar and the plaintiff (later deceased), in respect of the Trust properties. In the rent Agreement, the monthly rent is mentioned as Rs. 12/- and also, it is mentioned that the offering of flowers daily to Vaduvooshree Kothandaramasamy Kovil has been mentioned as stated in the trust and also that, the 1st appellant/plaintiff has been empowered to enjoy the properties in his possession and enjoyed the same. Moreover, Ramasamy Iyengar has been mentioned as an Authorised Manager of the Trust and also, there has been a Clause in Exhibit A-1 to renew the Rent Agreement for another 12 years, if the 1st appellant/plaintiff so desires. 29. Exhibit A-2 is the Lawyer‘s notice dated 2.3.1994, issued on behalf of the respondent/defendant, addressed to the plaintiffs counsel, wherein it is inter alia mentioned that the respondent/defendant, in R.S. No. 338/12 and 338/13 out of 1 Acre and 34 Cents, has taken the property on Lease, measuring an extent of 5 Cents (2400 sqft) approximately on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- and has put up a thatched shed and his father has been doing the bamboo business and selling of trees business. After the demise of the respondent/defendant‘s father, the respondent/defendant has continued to remain as a Lessee/Tenant and has paid the monthly rent of Rs. 10/- and has put up a thatched shed and his father has been doing the bamboo business and selling of trees business. After the demise of the respondent/defendant‘s father, the respondent/defendant has continued to remain as a Lessee/Tenant and has paid the monthly rent of Rs. 10/- to the plaintiff without default and also that, the appellant/plaintiff, as an agent of Ramasamy Iyengar and also as a trust Manager and further as a part Lessee, has received the rent from the respondent/defendant but, he has not received any receipts to that effect and informed that the receipts will be issued when the trust Manager visits to the Village. Moreover, the ground rent of Rs. 10/- has been paid till last February and it is false to state in the notice that the respondent/defendant has put up a shed as an encroacher. 30. In Exhibit A-3 Notice issued by the 1st appellant/plaintiffs Lawyer dated 8.3.1994, addressed to the respondent/defendant, it is stated that the earlier notice given on 22.2.1994 to the respondent/defendant may be treated as cancelled and also, it is stated that the tenancy alleged by the respondent/defendant of about 2400 sq.ft. on a rent of Rs. 10/- per month from the plaintiff, is true and also, the tenancy has been terminated with the end of 31.3.1994. Added further, the respondent/defendant has been directed to deliver the vacant possession of the site on 1.4.1994 and pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 360/-, failing which it has been informed that the suit for possession with mesne profits will follow. 31. The First Appellate Court in its Appeal judgment A.S. No. 148 of 1998, dated 31.3.1999 in Paras 6 and 7, has observed thus: “(6) Though it is held that the appellant is not a sub-tenant under the respondent, another one of the matter in issue is whether the notice to quit issued by the respondent under Exhibit A-3 is proper. On reading Exhibit A-3 notice, it is very clear that the period of disputable tenancy has been treated as monthly tenancy and that the said tenancy period has been terminated with the end of the tenancy month as on 31.3.1994. Further, on reading Exhibits B-1 to B-3 notices, receipts and challans with regard to professional tax for the business of fire wood, thatches and bamboos, it is clear that the business run by the appellant is not a manufacturing business. Further, on reading Exhibits B-1 to B-3 notices, receipts and challans with regard to professional tax for the business of fire wood, thatches and bamboos, it is clear that the business run by the appellant is not a manufacturing business. Further, except the appellant, his witnesses D.W.2 and D.W.3 deposed that the business of the appellant is the sale of thatches and bamboos. So, the appellant‘s evidence that he manufactured coir in the suit property is not believable. Under the circumstances, though production of coir can be said as manufacturing business, the defendant/appellant‘s contention that his business in the suit property is a manufacturing business is not accepted. So, the submission on behalf of the appellant that the notice to quit, terminating yearly tenancy by giving 6 months time with regard to the suit property is necessary from the respondent, is not accepted. So, Exhibit A-3 notice to quit issued by the respondent, terminating monthly tenancy, is proper. Therefore, the trial Court‘s finding that the Exhibit A-3, notice to quit, terminating tenancy with regard to the suit property is proper, is correct. (7) As stated supra, it is clear that though the respondent is a tenant of the suit property the appellant is not a sub-tenant under him for the suit property. Under the circumstances, the respondent should file the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, treating the appellant as trespasser. But his suit for recovery of possession is on the basis of tenancy. Such a suit cannot be said as maintainable. Under the circumstances, the relief with regard to possession now sought for by the respondent cannot be granted. However, another one of the matter in issue is whether the respondent is entitled to past profit at the rate of Rs. 10/-p.m. from 1.4.1996 and future profit of Rs. 100/-. Considering the nature of the property and the appellant‘s admission about the quantum of rent it is reasonable that the past profit claimed herein is correct. But, the future profit without property enquiry cannot be decided. However, the reliefs about profits sought for by the plaintiff/respondent cannot be granted, in view of the decision infra with regard to the relief of possession of the suit property. So, it is held for the Point No. 1 that the judgment and decree of the trial Court, decreeing the respondent‘s suit for possession with other reliefs is not correct. However, the reliefs about profits sought for by the plaintiff/respondent cannot be granted, in view of the decision infra with regard to the relief of possession of the suit property. So, it is held for the Point No. 1 that the judgment and decree of the trial Court, decreeing the respondent‘s suit for possession with other reliefs is not correct. So, it is decided to allow the appeal. But, with regard to one of the issue as to notice to quit, there is an adverse finding against the appellant. So, awarding the costs of the appellant/defendant is not proper. Hence, it is held for the Point No. 2 that the appeal shall be allowed without costs.” 32. In the present case on hand, the 1st appellant (plaintiff-since deceased) originally has taken the land of an extent of 1 Acre and 34 Cents on Lease from the Owner of the land in respect of the R.S. No. 338/12-A, 1 Acre and 4 Cents and 30 Cents in R.S. No. 338/13 as per Exhibit A-1 Rent Agreement. The Plaint schedule property in R.S. No. 338/12-A, 1 Acre and 4 Cents out of 1 Acre and 34 Cents is concerned with 2400 sq.ft. in which the thatched hut is situated. 33. Although the respondent/defendant in his written statement in Para 2 has clearly taken a plea that the appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) has possessed the right of collecting rent in the suit property only and further, since he remained as a Lessee in respect of the trust properties, the rent has been paid to him and that there is no rent arrangement between the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) and the respondent/defendant etc. The respondent/defendant as D.W.1 has deposed that he has paid a sum of Rs. 10/- as rent to the 1st appellant/plaintiff and moreover, he has also stated in his cross examination that he has not given the rent to the 1st appellant/plaintiff and it is not correct to state in the written statement that the rent has been paid to the 1st Appellant (plaintiff-deceased). As such, the respondent/defendant has taken a mutually contradictory and inconsistent stand, in his oral evidence as D.W.1 thereby, taking a deviant stand from the one projected by him in the written statement. As such, the respondent/defendant has taken a mutually contradictory and inconsistent stand, in his oral evidence as D.W.1 thereby, taking a deviant stand from the one projected by him in the written statement. Inasmuch as the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) has been the landlord to the respondent/defendant, it is for the respondent/defendant to prove that he has paid the monthly rent in respect of the Plaint schedule property to the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased). 34. Dealing with the evidence of D.W.1 (respondent/defendant) to the effect that he has not entered into a Lease in respect of the suit property with the 1st appellant/plaintiff and that the suit property belongs to Ramasamy Iyengar etc., the Exhibit A-1 Rent Agreement dated 21.10.1951, in the considered opinion of this Court belies the case of the respondent/defendant. As per Exhibit A-1 Rent Agreement dated 21.10.1951, the 1st Appellant (plaintiff since deceased) has taken the two properties on lease and one such properties is related to the suit property mentioned in the Plaint schedule. A perusal of the contents of Exhibit A-1 Rent Agreement dated 21.10.1951, shows that the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) has taken the Plaint schedule properties on Lease along with another properties for 12 years and after the expiry of the Lease, the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) is a person coming in the ambit of landlord ‘Holding Over‘. Moreover, as per Exhibit A-1 Rent Agreement dated 21.10.1951, the 1st appellant/plaintiff has taken the Plaint schedule property on Lease in his individual capacity and not as a manager of the trust, as seen from the recitals of the document. 35. As seen from the recitals of Exhibit A-2 Reply notice dated 2.3.1994, issued by the respondent/defendant‘s counsel, addressed to the 1st appellant/plaintiff‘s Lawyer that after the demise of his father, the respondent/defendant has continued to be the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- and has paid the rent to the 1st appellant/plaintiff as an agent of Trust Manager Ramasamy Iyengar and also as a Part Lessee. Furthermore, the respondent/defendant has stated that he has paid the monthly ground rent of Rs. 10/- till February. The 1st Appellant/1st plaintiff has issued Exhibit A-3 notice dated 8.3.1994 to the respondent/defendant, wherein he has cancelled the earlier notice dated 22.2.1994, addressed to the respondent/defendant and has also stated that the monthly rent for the plaint schedule property is Rs. Furthermore, the respondent/defendant has stated that he has paid the monthly ground rent of Rs. 10/- till February. The 1st Appellant/1st plaintiff has issued Exhibit A-3 notice dated 8.3.1994 to the respondent/defendant, wherein he has cancelled the earlier notice dated 22.2.1994, addressed to the respondent/defendant and has also stated that the monthly rent for the plaint schedule property is Rs. 10/- to an extent of 2400 sq.ft and further terminated the tenancy of the respondent/defendant ending with 31.3.1994, besides calling upon him to deliver the vacant possession on the site on 1.4.1994 and paid the arrears of Rs. 360/-. The suit filed by the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased), praying for passing of the Decree by the trial Court to direct the respondent/defendant to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property etc., is perfectly maintainable in law, as held by this Court. When the arrears of rent of Rs. 360/- has been claimed by the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) as per Exhibit A-3 notice dated 8.3.1994, then, it is the duty of the respondent/defendant to prove the same to the satisfaction of this Court and that he has paid the rent without any default and that he is not in arrears of any sum towards rent. 36. It is to be pointed out that where a tenant holds over, after determination of the period of Lease, if he does not settle fresh terms of the Lease if created, the character of the tenancy becomes a tenancy from month to month and the other terms of the original/initial tenancy will squarely apply to the tenancy brought about by holding over, as held by his Court. If a tenant continued in possession after the expiry of the Lease period with the consent of the Landlord, the tenant will be a tenant by Holding Over as per decision Central Bank of India v. Monohar Lal, AIR 1998 All 235 . 37. That apart, in the instant case, the Plaint schedule property is a trust property and as such, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act will not apply, as held by this Court. There is no necessity to determine a statutory tenancy by a notice as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, after the contractual tenancy has already come to an end. 38. There is no necessity to determine a statutory tenancy by a notice as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, after the contractual tenancy has already come to an end. 38. On going through the judgment of the First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 148 of 1998, this Court opines that the plea of the respondent/defendant that he is a tenant of the suit property under the Trust, is not correct by means of Exhibit A-1 Rent Agreement dated 21.10.1951, which has been entered into between one Ramasamy Iyengar and the 1st appellant/plaintiff (in his individual capacity). Per contra, the trial Court‘s finding that the respondent/defendant is a tenant under the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) is a correct one and the contra finding rendered by the First Appellate Court is per se and unsustainable in the eye of law. Also, the First Appellate Court in its Appeal judgment in Para 7 has erroneously observed that ‘the 1st appellant/plaintiff should have filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, treating the respondent/defendant as a trespasser and further, the suit filed by the 1st appellant/plaintiff is for recovery of possession on the basis of tenancy and therefore, such a suit cannot be said as maintainable‘ and accordingly, negatived the relief of possession sought by the 1st appellant/plaintiff. 39. The very fact that the respondent/defendant has stated in his Exhibit A-2 Reply notice dated 2.3.1994 that he has paid the monthly rent without any default to the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) manifestly shows that he is a tenant under the 1st appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) and when it is established in the present case that the 1st appellant/plaintiff is a sub-landlord and that there is a relationship between him and the respondent/defendant even on the basis of the principle of holding over concept as tenant, it is the primordial duty of the respondent/defendant to prove to the satisfaction of this Court that he has not committed any default in regard to the payment of monthly rent to the 1st appellant/plaintiff and since he has not discharged his onus in this regard, this Court holds that the 1st appellant/plaintiff is legally competent to file the present suit seeking the Decree of directing the respondent/defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the Plaint schedule property and also to pay the mesne profits etc. and as such, the respondent/defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 360/- to the appellants and also, as a future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/-. 40. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that after rendering a specific finding, the First Appellate Court cannot enter a directly contrary finding in the Appeal judgment and further, it is held that when the respondent/defendant has categorically admitted the tenancy, no triable issue arises in this regard and accordingly, both the Substantial Questions of Law are so answered in favour of the appellants. Consequently, the second appeal succeeds. In the result, the second appeal is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 31.3.1999 in A.S. No. 148 of 1998, are hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. As a logical corollary, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 4.3.1998 in O.S. No. 207 of 1994 are restored. The respondent/defendant is granted three months time to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the appellants from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed.