JUDGMENT 1. The appellants who are the defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit filed this second appeal against judgment and decree dated 31.01.2003 made in A.S.No.70 of 2002 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupathur (Fast Track Court) Vellore District confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 31.03.2000 made in O.S.No.243 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Vellore District. 2. For the sake of convenience, the defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit are referred as appellants and the plaintiff in the suit is referred as 1st respondent and 1st defendant in the suit is referred as 2nd respondent hereafter. 3. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction. Briefly the case of the 1st respondent is that the suit property belongs to the 1st respondent temple and the 2nd respondent herein was a tenant under the 1st respondent and paying monthly rent of Rs.300/- and the tenancy is in oral tenancy. Since the 1st respondent temple needs the suit property for storing materials, eviction notice was issued on 08.06.1980 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the 2nd respondent to vacate and deliver the possession on 01.07.1990. The 2nd respondent received the same but neither complied with the demand or replied the same. Further, the case of the 1st respondent is that the 2nd respondent has let out the suit property to the appellants without consent or knowledge of the 1st respondent and therefore, they were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. It is also averred in the plaint that since the suit property belongs to the 1st respondent temple (i.e.,) Hindu Religious Trust, it is exempted from the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 1960. Hence, the suit. 4. The 2nd respondent herein who is 1st defendant in the suit remained exparte before the trial court. Only, the appellants who are the defendants 2 and 3 filed a written statement. The case of the appellants is that the 2nd respondent was a tenant up to 30.12.1989 under the 1st respondent. From 01.01.1990 onwards, the appellants are the tenants under 2nd respondent and the 1st appellant occupied western portion and 2nd appellant occupied eastern portion of the suit property and both the appellants paying the rent of Rs.300/- jointly to the 1st respondent. From 01.01.1990 onwards, the appellants are the tenants under 2nd respondent and the 1st appellant occupied western portion and 2nd appellant occupied eastern portion of the suit property and both the appellants paying the rent of Rs.300/- jointly to the 1st respondent. But, the 1st respondent issued receipts only in the name of 2nd respondent but for want of acceptance of Commissioner of HR and CE, the receipts were issued in the name of these appellants. It is also averred in the written statement that the 2nd appellant paid a sum of Rs.300/- on 09.07.1990 and Rs.1000/-on 11.11.1992, for advance and the said amount was adjusted with the rents. Further, it is stated that the 2nd respondent is not a necessary party to the suit. According to the appellants, the 1st respondent is having knowledge that these appellants are residing in the suit property but no notice was issued to these appellants for termination of the tenancy and further, the appellants denied that the suit property is required for keeping properties and other materials. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial court has framed five issues on the above said pleadings and on the side of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, examined one witness as PW1 and marked two documents as Exs.A1 and A2. On the side of the appellants, the 1st appellant alone deposed as DW1 and marked 60 documents as Exs.B1 to B60. 6. The trial court has considered the above said oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides and finally held that the 2nd respondent alone is tenant under the 1st respondent and without consent and knowledge of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent given possession to the appellants as sublease and also held that the suit property is required for the 1st respondent for own use and finally decreed the suit as prayed for by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved over the above said findings of the trial court, the appellants preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.70 of 2002. The first appellate court has discussed in detail about the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and finally confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and dismissed the first appeal. 7. Aggrieved the above said concurrent findings of both the courts below, the appellants who are the defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit filed this second appeal. 8. 7. Aggrieved the above said concurrent findings of both the courts below, the appellants who are the defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit filed this second appeal. 8. This Court has admitted the second appeal on the following substantial question of law for consideration: “1. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit when Ex.A1 did not fulfill the statutory requirement contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act since 30 days time was not given in terminating the tenancy ? 2. Whether the Courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that the appellants are the sub-tenant when PW1 himself disposed that he is not in position to say whether the appellants are the tenants or the sub-tenants of first defendant ? 3. Whether the Courts below are competent to decree the suit without framing the issue whether notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid or not ? " 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the 1st respondent. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that the 1st respondent did not give statutory notice by giving the period of 30 days in terminating the tenancy to the 2nd respondent and therefore, the suit is not maintainable under Section 106 of Transfer of property Act. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that since the appellants are sub tenants with the consent and knowledge of 1st respondent and also received rent from the appellants, without issuing a statutory notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, to the appellants the suit is not maintainable. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent is the owner of the property and the suit property was given to the 2nd respondent alone on lease, but, the 2nd respondent without any consent and knowledge of 1st respondent given possession to the appellants and further, the suit premises is required for the 1st respondent to keep the vehicles and other purpose and therefore, issued legal notice to the 2nd respondent under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that both the courts below have discussed in detail about oral and documentary evidence and correctly held that the 2nd respondent alone was a tenant under the 1st respondent and without knowledge and consent of the 1st respondent, the appellants enjoying the suit property and therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any legal notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 12. Admittedly, the suit premises is belongs to the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent was a tenant under the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent has not appeared before the trial court and not contested the suit. The appellants alone contested the suit, by saying that the appellants becomes tenants under the 2nd respondent, who is original tenant with knowledge of the 1st respondent and also the appellants paying rent to the 1st respondent, in the name of 2nd respondent and therefore, without statutory requirements contemplated under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, the 1st respondent is not entitled to evict the appellants from the suit property. 13. Admittedly, the rent for the suit property paid only in the name of 2nd respondent and not paid in the name of the appellants. The contention of the appellants is that for want of acceptance of the Commissioner of HR & CE, the receipts were not issued in the name of appellants, issued only in the name of 2nd respondent but the appellants are the tenants under 1st respondent. Both the courts below have perused the entire documents adduced on the side of the appellants and held that all the rent receipts were issued only in the name of 2nd respondent, even after filing of the suit. Further, Ex.B60 filed by the appellants is only a Bank challan. As rightly held by both the courts below, it does not disclose for what purpose it was paid to the 1st respondent. Admittedly, on the side of the appellant has not produced any documents to prove that with the consent and knowledge of the 1st respondent, the appellants becomes tenants under the 2nd respondent. 14. Since the appellants are not in possession as tenants with the consent and knowledge of the 1st respondent, the appellants are not entitled to questioning the statutory notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act to the tenant namely 2nd respondent. 14. Since the appellants are not in possession as tenants with the consent and knowledge of the 1st respondent, the appellants are not entitled to questioning the statutory notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act to the tenant namely 2nd respondent. Another contention of the appellant is that since the above said Ex.A1 notice did not fulfill the statutory requirement contemplated under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act since 30 days time was not given in terminating the tenancy. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that after amendment in Section 3 of the Amendment Act 2002 of Transfer of Property Act, the above said contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 106(3) of Transfer of Property Act reads as under: "106 (3) A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section." 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also conceded the above said legal position. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is that Ex.A1 notice to terminate the tenancy did not fulfill the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act since 30 days time was not given in terminating the tenancy and on that ground, the suit is not maintainable cannot be accepted. Further, the appellants have not proved their contention that they are sub-tenants with the consent and knowledge of the 1st respondent as already discussed. Both the courts below have discussed about the provisions of the Act and correctly held that the 1st respondent is entitled to the relief sought for in the suit. In view of the above discussion, the concurrent findings of both the courts below are not perverse or illegal and therefore, the above said findings of both the courts below are to be confirmed and the second appeal is to be dismissed and answered the substantial questions of law accordingly. 16. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.