/1/

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT MUNSIF,

KANCHEEPURAM
Present:

Tr. G. Prabagaran, B.A.L.L.M.,

Principal District Munsif
Kancheepuram.

Tuesday , the 15 th day of December 2015

O.S.No.217/2015
Kancheepuram Pillaiyarpalayam Pudupalayam Street,
Sengunthar Community Charitable Sthapana Society
represented by its President, No.40, Pudupalayam Street,
Pillaiyarpalayam, Kancheepuram.
.......... Plaintiff
/VS/
C.Ponnambalam
......... Defendant
This suit, is coming on this day for final hearing, before me in
the presence of Tr. L.Sowmiyanarayanan, Advocate for the plaintiff and
the defendant called absent, set exparte and upon hearing the arguments
on plaintiff side, and having stood over for consideration, till this day,
this court delivered the following:
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
Suit for ejectment of the plaint schedule mentioned property
against the defendant against the defendant directing him to vacate and
handover vacant possession of the plaint schedule mentioned property
after removing the superstructure; failing which the same may be done
through the process of this Honourable Court; for costs of this suit and to

/2/

pass such or other orders as the court thinks for and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
1. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
The Plaintiff submits that the Sengunthar Community Charitable
Sthapana Society, is registered under the Societies Registration Act and
its Registration No.200/1997 having its Office at No.40, Pudupalayam
Street, Pillaiyarpalayam, Kancheepuram.
The Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff is a charitable association
registered under the Societies

Registration Act and doing charitable

works at Chidambareswarar, Ruthrakotteeswarar, Kasi Vinayagar Temple

and closely connected with Katchabeswarar Devasthanam.

Hence, it is

a charitable Society coming within the purview of Trust Act as well as

Hindu Religious Endowment Act.
The Defendant

is a tenant of the site more fully described in the

plaint schedule and the monthly rent is Rs.147/- the tenancy is ordinary
one terminable by 15 days notice to quit. The defendant has constructed
building in the plaint schedule mentioned property without the plaintiff's
permission. Technically speaking the plaintiff can claim ownership over

/3/

the superstructure that was negatived by the Rent Controller Court. The
Plaintiff further submits that in pursuance of the order passed in RCOP
NO.3/2010 dated 23.12.2014, on the file of Rent Controller Court,
Kancheepuram, the defendant

has declared as tenant of the site of the

plaint schedule mentioned property.

Further the defendant

is acting

against the interest of the samudhayam property. Hence it is no longer

possible to continue the tenancy.
The Plaintiff has issued a notice dated 27.04.2015 to to the
defendant for termination of lease and called upon the defendant to
remove

the superstructure and handover the possession of the property

to the plaintiff. Though the defendant has received the notice, neither
they have given any reply nor comply the demands of the plaintiff.
Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file this suit for ejectment of the suit
and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule mentioned property
against the defendant after removing the superstructure; failing which the
same may be done through the process of this Honourable Court.
3. The point for consideration arises in this suit is whether the
plaintiff is entitle the prayer sought for in the plaint or not?

/4/

4. On the side of plaintiff the President of Plaintiff society

examined as PW1,

Ex.A1 to A9 were marked.

The defendant was set

exparte in the suit proceedings.

5. Point:The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff
society is the owner of the site of the schedule of property.

The

defendant has constructed a building in the plaint schedule property

without

permission

of

plaintiff.

Kancheepuram, has declared that

The

Rent

Controller

Court

the plaintiff society is the owner of

site of plaint schedule of property in RCOP 3/2010, So the plaintiff has

issued legal notice to the defendant on 27.4.2015 for

termination of

lease, and call for the vacant possession of the property after removal of
superstructure made by the defendant.

Inspite of

defendant has not given any reply to the plaintiff.

receipt of notice the

Hence the plaintiff

has filed the suit for ejectment of defendant from the property, the suit
may be decreed as prayed for with costs.
6.

On

the

side

of

plaintiff

the

president

of

society

one

Mohanamurugan examined as PW1, Ex.A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.A1 is

/5/
the copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff through their counsel to the
defendant.

Ex.A2 is the postal acknowledgment card, Ex.A3 is the

decree copy of RCOP 3/2010, Ex.A4 is the copy of order in RCOP

3/2010, Ex.A5 is the compared copy of

patta pass book, Ex.A6 is the

land tax receipt, Ex.A7 is the resolutions passed by

the plaintiffs

society, Ex.A8 is the order of Commissioner, Tamilnadu Urban Land Tax,

Ex.A9 is the compared copy of site rental agreement dated 1.11.2008
entered in between plaintiff society and defendant.
7. In spite of Court's summon served to defendant, the defendant
not appeared in the suit proceedings, hence
exparte.

he called absent and set

So the defendant has know the pendency of this suit,

before

that the plaintiff society has filed RCOP 3/2010 before Rent Controller
Court, Kancheepuram against this defendant for eviction, that RCOP was
dismissed on the grounds that the LandLord Tenant relationship is not
exists inbetween parties and the plaintiff has failed to prove the
ownership of the building. So the plaintiff has filed this suit on the basis
of Ex.A1 termination of lease agreement notice.

In RCOP Proceedings

the defendant has admitted that he is the tenant

under the plaintiff

society for site only not for building. The Ex.A5 to Ex.A9 are clearly

/6/
shows that, the plaintiff society is the owner of the site of the schedule
of property.

The defendant has not come forward

to contest the case,

though he has hotly contest in the RCOP proceedings.

The Ex.A7

resolutions of plaintiff

the PW1 is

society

are

clearly shows that

present President of the plaintiff's society. So the plaintiff has clearly

proved the case through oral documentary evidence. There is no contra
evidence on the side of defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff.
Hence, this Court has come to conclusion that, the plaintiff is entitled the
decree for ejectment of defendant from the plaint schedule property. The
point is answered accordingly.
In the result, this suit is decreed as

prayed for with costs.

months time is given for ejectment of defendant from the suit property
after removal of superstructure.
Dictated to the Typist

directly and

typed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 15 th day of December 2015.

Sd/- G.Prabagaran,
Principal District Munsif,
Kancheepuram.
List of exhibits on plaintiff's side:
Ex.A1/Ex.A2/-

27.4.2015

Copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to

the defendant.
Postal Acknowledgment card

/7/

Ex.A3/-

23.12.2014

Decree of RCOP 3/2010

Ex.A4/-

23.12.2014

Order of RCOP 3/2010

Ex.A5/Ex.A6/-

Compared copy of Patta pass book

29.6.2004

Ex.A7/Ex.A8/-

Land Tax receipt (Xerox)

Resolutions of plaintiff's society. (Xerox)

29.4.1994

Form of Order
Commissioner.

passed

by

Assistant

Ex.A9/01/11/08
Compared copy of lease agreement.
List of witnesses on plaintiff's side:
PW1/-

Mohanamurugan
Sd/- G.Prabagaran,
PDM/KPM