JUDGMENT : In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 16.07.2004 passed in A.S.No.36 of 2004 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2002 passed in O.S.No.8399 of 1993 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for possession, arrears of rent, past and future damages. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff's Devasthanam is the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant is a tenant in respect of the first floor measuring about 912 sq.feet on a monthly rent of Rs.260/- payable according to English calender month and the rent paid by the defendant is very low compared to the lie of the suit property in one of the busiest localities in the city of Madras and accordingly, taking into consideration all the factors, the rent had been enhanced from the month of September, 1991 to a reasonable sum of Rs.780/- and it was duly intimated to the defendant by the Executive Officer vide his letter dated 01.09.1991 and the same had been acknowledged by the defendant and the defendant has not sent any reply to the same thereby agreeing to pay the increased rent and despite the requests and remainders, the defendant had failed and neglected to pay the enhanced rent and only continued to pay the old rent and the same is being adjusted towards the rent account at the rate of Rs.780/- per month from 01.09.1991 onwards. The defendant is very irregular in payment of the rent and accordingly, failed to pay the rent from February 1992 to December 1992 amounting to Rs.8,320/- inspite of repeated demands and requests and by way of a notice dated 10.11.1992, the plaintiff determined the tenancy of the defendant with the expiry of December, 1992 and called upon the defendant to pay the enhanced rent and damages at the rate of Rs.900/- per month from 01.01.1993 onwards and the said notice had been acknowledged by the defendant and despite the same, the defendant had failed and neglected to send any reply nor vacated the suit property and hence, according to the plaintiff, it has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 5. 5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendant along with his brother are the tenants of the entire first floor of the suit property, on a contractual rent of Rs.260/- per month and the case put forth by the plaintiff that the rent had been enhanced to Rs.780/-per month from September, 1991 is not true and correct and the plaintiff cannot unilaterally raise the rent as above and hence, there is no liability to pay the rent/arrears at Rs.780/- per month as claimed in the plaint. The tenancy is not according to English calender month. The suit for recovery of possession of a lesser portion, when the first floor measures 912 sq.feet is not maintainable. It is false to state that the suit property lies in a busiest locality and would fetch higher rent and the rent had been regularly paid by the defendant and hence, the allegation that the defendant is irregular in the payment of the rent is incorrect and the defendant is not liable to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.8,320/- as alleged in the plaint. The notice of termination of tenancy is invalid. The plaintiff is not entitled to any one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint including the recovery of possession and by accepting the rental deposit amount at Rs.780/- representing 3 months rent, there is waiver on the part of the plaintiff in proceeding with the suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to accept the plaintiff's case and accordingly, granted the necessary reliefs in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated. (a). Whether the unsigned letter Ex.A1 unilaterally increasing the contractual rent of Rs.260/- p.m. to Rs.780/- p.m. Contrary to the Tamil Nadu G.O. Prohibiting such increase, is valid and enforceable? Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated. (a). Whether the unsigned letter Ex.A1 unilaterally increasing the contractual rent of Rs.260/- p.m. to Rs.780/- p.m. Contrary to the Tamil Nadu G.O. Prohibiting such increase, is valid and enforceable? When u/s.7 of the Indian Contract Act, mere silence on the part of defendant would not amount to acceptance? (b). Whether Ex.A-2 termination notice is valid? (c). Whether Ex.A2 notice of termination of tenancy addressed only to the defendant, is valid and the suit filed against him alone is maintainable, when both the defendant and his brother Ram Narain Goud are tenants after the death of their father Dhanraj Satyanarayana? (d). Whether the court below is right in not drawing adverse inference against the plaintiff for non production of account books maintained by it, which if produced, would have established that both the brothers, namely, the defendant and Ram Narain Goud are tenants of the suit property? (e). Whether the decree of the court below failing to give credit to the admitted payment of the contractual rent of Rs.260/- per month from February 1992 till date, is sustainable? (f). Whether the decree of the court below warding future mesne profits in excess of Rs.30/- per day claimed by plaintiff under Ex.A2 sustainable? 9. It is not in dispute that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff's Devasthanam. Further, it is noted that the defendant is a tenant in respect of the first floor of the plaintiff's property on a monthly rent of Rs.260/- per month. As regards the occupation of the first floor of the property as a tenant, the same has been admitted by the defendant in the course of his evidence. It is thus found that the case of the defendant that he and his brother are in the occupation of the suit property as such does not merit acceptance. As regards the occupation of the first floor of the property as a tenant, the same has been admitted by the defendant in the course of his evidence. It is thus found that the case of the defendant that he and his brother are in the occupation of the suit property as such does not merit acceptance. According to the plaintiff, considering the lie of the suit property in the busiest locality in the heart of Chennai City, it is stated that the rent for the suit property being very low, according to the plaintiff, the rent had been enhanced from Rs.260 to Rs.780 per month commencing from September, 1991 and accordingly, it is stated that the defendant had been informed of the same by way of a notice dated 01.09.1991 and the copy of the same has been marked as Ex.A1. The receipt of Ex.A1 has not been disputed by the defendant. On a perusal of Ex.A1, it is seen that the plaintiff has sent the above said communication to the defendant informing that the rent had been enhanced from September 1991 to Rs.780/- and accordingly, directed him to pay the increased rent from the said period and also execute the lease deed for the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Despite the receipt of the said notice, the defendant has not cared to respond to the same either by accepting the same or repudiating the same. As above noted, the copy of the notice dated 01.09.1991 has been marked as Ex.A1, the same being the office copy, it is seen that the same does not contain the signature of the Executive Officer. In such view of the matter, the defendant cannot be allowed to contend that inasmuch as Ex.A1 as produced in the Court is not found to be containing the signature of the Executive Officer, there is no need on the part of the defendant to reply to the same. In such view of the matter, the defendant cannot be allowed to contend that inasmuch as Ex.A1 as produced in the Court is not found to be containing the signature of the Executive Officer, there is no need on the part of the defendant to reply to the same. When the receipt of the original notice sent to the defendant has not been repudiated and when the said original notice has not been exhibited by the defendant in this matter and on the other hand, the plaintiff has chosen to exhibit the copy of the same, merely on the footing that the copy of the same, i.e. Ex.A1 does not contain the signature of the Executive Officer, that by itself would not enable the defendant to contend that, on that score, he is not required to reply or respond to the same. If the defendant had produced the original notice sent to him and if the original notice does not contain the signature of the Executive Officer, at least, on that footing, the defendant might have had a case for not sending a reply to the notice, on the footing that the same does not contain the signature of the sender in the notice. In such view of the matter, the absence of the signature of the Executive Officer in the copy of the notice marked as Ex.A1 would not in any manner undermine the plaintiff's case and equally, would not in any manner be helpful for the defence to advance the theory that the same is a good cause for the defendant in not sending a reply with reference to the enhancement of rent claimed by the plaintiff by way of the said notice. 10. The receipt of Ex.A1 notice, as above seen, has not been challenged. 10. The receipt of Ex.A1 notice, as above seen, has not been challenged. Admittedly, when the defendant is in the occupation of the suit property under the plaintiff's Devasthanam as a tenant and when the plaintiff's Devasthanam has sent a communication to the defendant seeking enhancement of rent from September, 1991 at the rate of Rs.780/- per month, the defendant either should accept the same or repudiate the same by sending a suitable reply and on the other hand, the conduct of the defendant in keeping mum without either accepting or repudiating the said notice, accordingly, it is seen that the silence on the part of the defendant with reference to the claim of the plaintiff for the enhancement of rent, as above noted, could only be inferred as the acceptance on the part of the defendant to the proposed increase of rent by the plaintiff from September 1991 as claimed in the said notice. In such view of the matter, the contention of the defendant's counsel that inasmuch as the defendant had not expressly agreed to the enhanced rent, the plaintiff's Devasthanam cannot unilaterally enhance the rent as such cannot be accepted. In this connection, it is also to be noted that as per the evidence of PW1, the suit property is lying just one furlong away from the plaintiff's Devasthanam, and the same has also been admitted by the defendant examined as DW1 and DW1 would state that the suit property lies about 40 houses away from the plaintiff's temple and also admitted that the suit property lies in a commercial area. In such view of the matter, when the rent proposed to be enhanced by the plaintiff's Devasthanam is found to be at the marginal rate, considering the lie of the suit property in a commercial area and when the receipt Ex.A1 has not been controverted by the defendant, as a prudent person, the defendant owes a duty to either accept or repudiate the demand of increase in the rent either in person or by way of sending a reply to Ex.A1 notice. On the other hand, without resorting to any course of action, the act and attitude of the defendant in continuing to occupy the suit property would only go to infer that the defendant had agreed to the demand of increased rent made by the plaintiff's Devasthanam under Ex.A1 notice. 11. On the other hand, without resorting to any course of action, the act and attitude of the defendant in continuing to occupy the suit property would only go to infer that the defendant had agreed to the demand of increased rent made by the plaintiff's Devasthanam under Ex.A1 notice. 11. Accordingly, it is found that on seeing the defiant attitude of the defendant in not paying the enhanced rent from September, 1991 and accordingly, further noting that the defendant had kept the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.8,320/- and also failed to pay the rent as enhanced regularly and being a defaulter in the payment of rent, the plaintiff's Devasthanam terminated the tenancy of the defendant by sending a notice dated 10.11.1992 terminating the tenancy of the defendant with the expiry of December, 1992 and thereby, called upon the defendant to surrender the possession of the suit property on or before 01.01.1993 and the said notice of termination has been marked as Ex.A2. The receipt of Ex.A2 notice has not been disputed and the defendant has not sent any reply to the same. Even in Ex.A2 notice, the plaintiff has averred about the enhancement of rent demanded by it under Ex.A1 notice from September, 1991 and also informed that despite several requests and reminders, the defendant had failed to pay the enhanced rent as demanded and accordingly, pointing that the defendant had kept the arrears of rent and occupying the suit property without paying the rent promptly, on that premise, terminated the tenancy of the defendant by way of the abovesaid notice. If really, the defendant had no intention of accepting the enhanced rent demanded by the plaintiff's Devasthanam, as aboveseen, the defendant, as a prudent person, would have responded to Ex.A1 notice. When the plaintiff's Devasthanam had reiterated its case in Ex.A2 also and when the receipt of Ex.A2 notice also not been controverted by the defendant, still, it is seen that the defendant had not chosen to send any reply to the same. When the plaintiff's Devasthanam had reiterated its case in Ex.A2 also and when the receipt of Ex.A2 notice also not been controverted by the defendant, still, it is seen that the defendant had not chosen to send any reply to the same. In toto, it is found that accordingly, the defendant having admitted the enhancement of the rent made by the plaintiff's Devasthanam from September, 1991 and accordingly, unable to resist the demand of the plaintiff made by way of Ex.A2, is found to have not sent any reply to the same and in such view of the matter, the contention now put forth by the defendant that the plaintiff's Devasthanam is not entitled to unilaterally enhance the rent and hence, the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is irregular in the payment of rent should not be countenanced as such cannot be accepted in any manner. No doubt, PW1, during the course of cross examination at one place would state that the defendant has not accepted the theory that the suit property would fetch a higher rent considering the market value of the suit property. By way of the same, it cannot be construed that the defendant had repudiated the demand of increased rent made by the plaintiff in Ex.A1 notice and reiterated in Ex.A2 notice. In the light of the above factual position, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as above discussed, it is seen that the silence on the part of the defendant in not expressing his stand as regards the enhancement of rent either by affirming the same or by disagreeing the same one way or the other and on the other hand, the conduct of the defendant in still continuing to occupy the suit property would only go to show that the defendant had accepted the demand of increased rent put forth by the plaintiff in Ex.A1 notice and accordingly, it is seen that the defendant would not be entitled to contend that he has not accepted the proposal of the enhancement of rent made by the plaintiff. If really, according to the defendant, the suit property would not fetch the increased rent as determined by the plaintiff in Ex.A1 notice and the rent increase made by the plaintiff is on the higher side, the defendant in the normal course of events would have endeavoured to vacate the suit property on his own and chose a suitable place for his accommodation as he deemed fit and necessary. On the other hand, without any demur, the conduct of the defendant in continuing to occupy the suit property, despite the enhancement of rent made by the plaintiff's Devasthanam could only be seen as a tacit acceptance on the part of the defendant to the said proposal and in such view of the matter, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it has to be held that the demand of increased rent made by the plaintiff's Devasthanam has been accepted by the defendant and such being the position, the defendant as put forth by the plaintiff, having failed to pay the enhanced rent from September, 1991 and on the other hand, continue to pay only the old rent and accordingly, keeping the rent arrears deliberately unpaid, despite the requests of the plaintiff to pay the same and in such view of the matter, it is found that left with no other alternative, the plaintiff's Devasthanam had issued the termination notice Ex.A2 and accordingly, it is found that despite the receipt of Ex.A2, the defendant has not chosen to reply to the same and on a totality of the appreciation of the abovesaid materials, the same would only go to show that the defendant is a wilful and chronic defaulter in the payment of rent and his intention is only to squat in the premises belonging to the plaintiff's Devasthanam without paying the due rent to the same as demanded by the plaintiff. 12. The notice of termination issued by the plaintiff is marked as Ex.A2 and though the defendant would challenge the same as invalid, however, no material worth acceptance has been placed by the defendant to hold that Ex.A2 notice is invalid. 12. The notice of termination issued by the plaintiff is marked as Ex.A2 and though the defendant would challenge the same as invalid, however, no material worth acceptance has been placed by the defendant to hold that Ex.A2 notice is invalid. When admittedly the defendant is occupying the first floor of the suit property and when Ex.A2 notice has been issued with regard to the suit property, it is found that the abovesaid notice satisfying all the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the tenancy being as per English calender month and the contra case projected by the defendant with reference to the same, rightly been negatived by the Courts below, it is found that Ex.A2 notice of termination is perfectly valid and the above determination of the Courts below do not warrant any interference. Though the defendant would contend that he along with his brother is in the occupation of the suit property but having admitted that he is in the occupation of the first floor of the suit property during the course of evidence, also would state that his brother is occupying the ground floor, accordingly, it is found that there is no contradiction in the notice of termination issued by the plaintiff to the defendant and his brother marked as Ex.A3 as well as the notice marked as Ex.A2 and it is found that Exs.A2 and A3 do not mutually contradict each other and accordingly, it has been rightly held by the Courts below that the plaintiff has validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant in the manner known to law. 13. The authority of the Executive Officer to institute the suit has not been raised as a defence by the defendant in the written statement and accordingly, the same has also not been framed as an issue in the lis by the Courts below and even at the time of the admission of the second appeal the above said defence has not been projected in the grounds of appeal and accordingly, the second appeal has not been admitted on the abovesaid point. Despite the same, the counsel appearing for the defendant strenuously contended that the same being a question of law could be raised at any point of time and accordingly, also placed reliance upon certain authorities in support of his above said contention. Despite the same, the counsel appearing for the defendant strenuously contended that the same being a question of law could be raised at any point of time and accordingly, also placed reliance upon certain authorities in support of his above said contention. However, the second appeal having not been admitted on the abovesaid point, this Court feels that it is unnecessary to deal with the said point for the disposal of the second appeal. Still, considering the contention put forth by the defendant's counsel that it is only a question of law, this Court proposes to answer the said point. As rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, considering the hierarchy of the management of the temple properties, it is found that the same is governed by the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the allied rules pertaining to the same. In this connection, it is found that the Government has issued the notification in G.O.Ms.No.260, Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments Department styled as the conditions for appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 and challenge the above said G.O. it is found that W.P.No.2290 of 2017 has been levied. This Court had dismissed the above said writ petition by order dated 31.01.2017 and while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court considering the powers given to the Executive Officer under sub-clause (iii) of Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 4 of the above said Rules, repudiating the argument put forth in the said matter that the Executive Officer should not be given the authority to sue or be sued in the name of the religious institution in all legal proceedings, the Court has held as follows: With regard to challenge to sub-clause (iii) of sub-rule (b) of Rule 4, the petitioner's grievance that the Executive Officer should not be given authority to sue or be sued in the name of the religious institutions in all legal proceedings is, in our opinion, bordering on being preposterous. The reasons are two fold: one is, there is an inherent safeguard in sub-rule (iii) itself as it says that the Executive Officer, shall so sue or be sued only with the approval of the competent authority. The other reason is that when we talk about religious institution suing or being sued, it is in effect the idol. The reasons are two fold: one is, there is an inherent safeguard in sub-rule (iii) itself as it says that the Executive Officer, shall so sue or be sued only with the approval of the competent authority. The other reason is that when we talk about religious institution suing or being sued, it is in effect the idol. Law is well settled that idol is a minor and therefore, somebody should sue and be sued on behalf of the minor. Infact, the Courts have gone as far as saying that courts are parenti locus qua idol. To draw an anology, it may be relevant to point out that a company (irrespective of whether it is a public company or private limited company) is a juristic person and therefore, a natural person would represent the company in all proceedings. The religious institution being made a party to or becoming a party to any legal proceedings is akin to the situation. 14. Considering the above, and appling the same to the case at hand, when it is seen that even as per the main act, the Executive Officer is competent to sue on behalf of the plaintiff's Devasthanam with the approval of the competent authority and accordingly, when there is no prima facie material placed on the part of the defendant to evidence that he has not been so empowered to sue by the competent authority and accordingly, the defendant also having not taken any plea as regards the same in the written statement, in such view of the matter, it is found that as rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, the suit laid by the temple being actually in effect only in the name of the idol lying therein and accordingly, it is found that in such view of the matter, the Court should take upon the role as parenti locus qua the idol and ensure that the suit of the present nature is not defeated on flimsy grounds or untenable defence made without any foundation. Accordingly, it is noted that when there is no material placed on the part of the defendant that the Executive Officer has not been empowered by the competent authority to institute the present lis against the defendant, particularly when the defendant has not taken such a plea in the written statement and the said plea comprises of the appreciation of both factual as well as legal aspects and the defendant also having not taken the said plea in the grounds put forth in the second appeal and as above seen, the second appeal having also not been admitted on the abovesaid aspect of the matter, even assuming for the sake of arguments that the defendant's counsel is entitled to raise the said contention, in my considered opinion, the present suit should only be declared to have been instituted by the executive officer with the concurrence of the competent authority and accordingly, it is seen that the defendant is unable to place any material contra to the same. Accordingly, it has to be held that the suit laid by the plaintiff's Devasthanam represented by its executive officer is legally maintainable. 15. In support of the contentions as put forth by the defendant's counsel, he placed reliance upon the decisions reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240 (H.Siddiqui (Dead) By Lrs Vs. A. Ramalingam), (1980) 4 SCC 430 ( Basant Lal (Dead) By Lrs and others Vs. State of Utta Pradesh), AIR 1955 SC 468 (Thawardas Pherumal and another Vs. Union of India), AIR 1996 SC 869 (Dr.Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. Smt.Raj Kumari Sharma and others), AIR 1969 SC 73 (Seth Loon Karan Sethiya Vs. Ivan E.John and others), 2017 (2) CTC 536 (C.Balakrishnan and another Vs. Arulmighu Vishwanathaswamy Temple, rep.by its Hereditary Trustee, Bava Chockkappa Mudaliar, Kulikkarai Village, Gudavasal (Tk) Thiruvarur District), 2003-1-L.W.386 ( Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode by its present Executive Officer, Sri Sabapathy Vs. T.M.Muthuswamy Padayachi etc & others), (2001) 1 MLJ 438 (M.Muthu (died) and others Vs.Arulmigu Sundareswararswamy Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer, Kovur, Mangadu) and (2002) 3 MLJ 830 (Arulmighu Kailasanathar Temple SAYARATCHA KATTALAI represented by its Executive Officer, K.Natarajan Vs. R.Srinivasan). The principles of law outlined in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. 16. R.Srinivasan). The principles of law outlined in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. 16. Considering the above discussions and the determination thereof, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.