A N KUMAR Vs. ARULMIGHU ARUNACHALESWARAR DEVASTHANAM THIRUVANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the learned single Judge in C.S.No.1486 of 1988 and Tr.C.S.No.847 of 1993 dated 14.2.2001, whereby the learned single Judge decreed the suit filed by the Plaintiff Devasthanam directing the Defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession and declining to grant the relief specific performance as prayed by the Defendant-A.N.Kumar. Since the points for determination in both the appeals are one and same, both the appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in Civil Suit No.1486 of 1988 filed before this Court.

(2.) Case of Plaintiff-Devasthanam is that Plaintiff is the owner of the property measuring about 64 grounds in S.No.41, Sri Arunachalampuram in the village of Urur, erstwhile Saidapet Taluk. According to Plaintiff-Devasthanam, the said 64 grounds was leased to one A.Ranaganatha Mudaliar under lease deed dated 24.02.1937 for a period of 50 years on a monthly rent at the rate of Rs.40/-. As per the lease, the lessee was permitted to erect buildings and superstructures over the property. Further case of Plaintiff is that lessee Ranganatha Mudaliar assigned portions of the lease hold property to some third parties in violation of the lease deed, thereby putting an end to the lease in respect of the forfeited portions. Lessee Ranganatha Mudaliar died leaving the Defendants 1 to 3, the grandsons and 4th Defendant, the granddaughter. Case of Plaintiff is that Defendants 1 to 4 as the legal heirs of the original lessee are entitled to the leasehold right in respect of the remaining property described in 'B' schedule.

(3.) According to Plaintiff, the period of lease fixed under Ex.A1 lease deed expired on 23.2.1987 and on the expiry of lease, Defendants 1 to 4 have not surrendered possession of the land or the superstructure and they continued to occupy only as tenants holding over. The Plaintiff-Devasthanam, being the public religious Institution and taking into account the interest of the Institution, the lease was not renewed. Since, Defendants failed to deliver possession of the suit property, Plaintiff issued Ex.A2 legal notice which was replied by the 1st Defendant under Ex.A3.