IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21/11/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN Second Appeal No.350 of 1987 and Second Appeal Nos. 351 to 358 of 1987 SA.No.350 of 1987 Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar (Deity) represented by its Executive Officer, Devakottai Posumpon Muthuramalingam District ... Appellant -Vs- 1. K.Palaniappa Pillai 2. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram, Madurai. ... Respondents For appellant : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Jayaraman Senior Counsel for A.Maninarayanan for R1. :ORDER The suit was filed for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent. The property was originally part of Kallambirambu estate. The plaintiff/temple was a land holder of the said estate. Defendants are entitled as tenants and they were given vacant land on lease and the defendants constructed building in the vacant site given to them. They put up construction in the site. While so, on 07.09.1949, under Madras Estate Abolition Act,26 of 1948, notice was issued to the plaintiff/temple and the lands were taken over by the Government. But, from that date onwards, the defendants/lessees stopped payment of rent. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and also for recovery of possession of lands. 2. The case of the defendants is that since notice has been issued under Estate Abolition Act to the Temple, the Temple seized to be the owner of the property thereafter. The property became the property of the Government. Therefore, the defendants who were tenants under the Temple need not pay the rent as they were occupying Government lands. 3. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and also by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the temple has filed the present second appeal. 4. The Substantial questions of law framed is as follows: "Whether the Courts below have correctly understood the decision in 1971 II MLJ 278 which was rendered between the parties to the present proceedings" 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that only a show cause notice was issued to the temple; thereafter no proceedings were initiated and the Government did not take any steps to take possession of the land; the land continued to be in the possession of the temple. The temple continue to be the owner of the land since no further action was taken by the Government under Act 26 of 1948. In the circumstances, the lessees are bound to pay the rent to the temple. Inasmuch as the lessees refused to pay the rent and questioned the title of the temple itself, they cannot continue to be in possession of the land any more and therefore, suit for recovery of the lease property should also be granted. 6. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, appearing for the respondent submitted that the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant may be accepted only if the land is a mere poramboke land. But, this land is a Oorani Poramboke land and therefore, it is water sources. With respect to such lands, once notice is issued, the land automatically vest with the Government. Therefore, under Act 26 of 1948, no further action need be taken; the mere issue of show cause notice divest the occupant (temple) and the land become vested with the Government. Therefore, once the show cause notice was issued the land became the Government land. Temple seized to be owner of the land and hence the tenants under the temple need not pay any rent to the temple. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the second appeal also has to be dismissed. 7. There is no evidence on record to show that the land forms part of 'Oorani' poramboke. Further if it is oorani poramboke land, the defendants cannot continue to be in possession; they have to be evicted; the buildings constructed by them have to be demolished. Inasmuch as the Government has not taken any steps to evict the persons from their occupation, it appears that it is not oorani poramboke as contended. Admittedly, the temple was the land holder. Only the show cause notice issued under the Act. Since there is no further proceedings were taken, show cause notice gets lapsed and therefore, the temple continues to be the land holder. In such circumstances, the defendants/tenants are bound to pay the rent as they are the tenants under the temple. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submit that no notice given to the temple under the land Encroachment Act; the lands were continued to be possessed by the temple; and mere issuance of show cause notice does not amount to dispossession. In CVS. Devasthanam Vs. Duraiswami Nadar and others (1971(II) MLJ 278), wherein it it was held that under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948), the definition of a building contained in Section 18(5) of the Act when incorporated in sub-section (4) would have the consequence that if the building as well as the site on which it stood both belonged to the same person, upon the notification under the Act both of them will vest in that person. If the land holder even after the notified date continues in possession of the land undisturbed by the rightful owner, if any, that would entitle the landholder to demand and collect rent from the tenant. 9. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that since possession of the land has not been taken over, the temple continues to be the holder of the land. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is acceptable. Inasmuch as the Government did not dispossess the temple, the lands continue to be in possession of the temple and the temple is the owner of the land. Therefore, all the defendants are only tenants under the Temple and they are bound to pay the rent to the temple, the appellant. 10. In the circumstances, all the Second appeals are allowed. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. 11. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the appellant also accepted that if the tenants pay the rent regularly, they will not be evicted. In the circumstances, since the owner of the land holder is only the temple as long as the tenants pay the rent regularly, the temple need not evict them. 12. In the result, all the Second appeals are allowed. No costs. Index:Yes Internet:Yes ksr 