- (1.)THE unsuccessful defendants 1 to 3 in both the Courts below are the appellants.
(2.)THE case in brief is as follows: " THE plaintiff Matam filed a suit for eviction of defendants from the suit buildings bearing Door No. 128/1, 128/2, 128/3, 128/4 and 128/5 in T.S.R. Big Street, in T.S. No. 1995 of Kumbakonam Municipal Town. THE plaintiff is a public Trust owning the building and they leased the same to the father of the first defendant by name Rathinam for non-residential use. He was carrying goldsmith profession. After the death of Rathinam, his son the first defendant continues to p osses the property as a lessee on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. THE rent is to be paid on or before the first of every English calendar month. THE first defendant is working in Bank of Thanjavur in various places. He subleased the property to defendants 2 to 4 and now, it is in a dilapidated condition and required for demolition and reconstruction. Hence, the suit.
The first defendant resisted the suit stating that the plaintiff Matam is not a public Trust; but is only a private Trust. The defendants are entitled to claim benefits under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The suit filed in the Civil Court is not maintainable. There is no valid notice to quit. He admitted that he is working in Bank of Thanjavur, but continued the goldsmith pattarai business of his father and defendants 2 to 4 are employed u nder him. They are not the sub-lessees. The building is in a good condition and no demolition is necessary.

Defendants 2 to 4 stated that they are not sub tenants and in fact, the son of the first defendant is looking after the goldsmith business. They are unnecessary parties to the suit.

The trial Court framed 7 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.J and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and no document was marked. The trial Court decreed the suit and granted two month, time to deliver possession and aggrieved against this, defendants 1 to 4 preferred A.S. No. 68 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Kumbakonam and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and aggrieved against this, defendants 1 to 3 have come forward with the present Second Appeal.

At the time of admission of the Second Appeal this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration.

"1) Whether the suit for ejectment in the Civil Court not maintainable since the detendant is the tenant of the building entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960"
2) Whether the plaintiff is a private trust and hence was not exempt from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act" 3) Whether Ex. A-1 was a proper and valid notice"
(3.)HEARD the learned counsel of both sides,
It is admitted that the plaintiff Matam is the owner of the property in question. The suit building was leased out to the father of the first defendant for running the goldsmith business. After the demise of Rathinam, the father of the first defendant, he continued to possess the property as a lessee on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. Admittedly, the first defendant is working in the Bank of Thanjavur and according to the plaintiff, the property has been sub leased to defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff sent a notice under ExA-1 dated 11.9.1981 terminating the tenancy and called upon them to deliver possession. Exs. A-2 to A-5 are the served acknowledgments. Exs.A-6 and A-7 are the replies sent by the defendants.

The Trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and rejected the contentions of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 contended that the Courts below ought to have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is a private Trust and, as such, the defendants are entitled to claim benefit, under the provisions of the Act. Though P.W.I admitted that there are documents to show that the plaintiff is a Public Trust, no document had been filed. The first defendant is a tenant of the building and the suit for recovery of possession does not lie. The Civil Court has no jurisidiction to entertain the suit. The notice to quit Ex. A-1 is not valid and proper under law. Defendants 2 to 4 are members of the family of the first defendant and assisted him in the work of goldsmith.