about the arrears of rent kept by the defendant over a period of time and called upon the defendant to pay the said arrears of rent, failing which, the plaintiff temple will be constrained to take appropriate steps to recover the same and also, to recover the possession of the suit property from the defendant. It is therefore obvious that under Ex.A2, as rightly found by the first appellate court, the tenancy of the defendant has not been duly determined by the plaintiff temple in accordance with law and in such view of the matter, the defendant being a tenant of the plaintiff temple in respect of the suit property, without determination of the defendant's tenancy in accordance with law, the plaintiff would not be entitled to maintain the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant. Accordingly, it could be seen that the first appellate court has rightly found that the suit filed by the temple for eviction of the defendant from the suit property is not maintainable and the plaintiff's temple would be entitled to recover the possession of the suit property from the defendant only after the determination of his tenancy duly in accordance with law. In such view of the matter, the findings and conclusions of the first appellate court for rejecting the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant sought for by the plaintiff temple do no call for any interference.
