S JEYARAJ Vs. LOYOLA COLLEGE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment shall govern the above twenty second Appeals which have been arisen from a common Judgment rendered by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court -V, Chennai made in the following first appeals viz. A.S.No.542, 543, 555, 590, 598, 601, 592, 595, 599, 556, 574, 591, 576, 572, 573, 575, 596, 600, 560 and 561 of 2004 wherein the judgments of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Judge, Chennai, granting a decree directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff within three months in all the following suits 5653, 6319, 5807, 5657/02, 952/03, 6315/02, 2123/03, 2125/03, 6318/02, 5656/02, 6316/02, 5658/02, 6320/02, 5655/02, 5663/02, 5660/02,5654/02, 5802/02, 5805/02 and 5804 of 2002 were confirmed. Aggrieved over the said judgments, the defendants in those suits have brought forth these second appeals.

(2.) THE respondents/plaintiffs described as Loyola College Society represented by its Procurator Father Inchakkal, sought the decrees for ejectment of the defendants in the respective suits alleging that the plaintiff is a Religious, Educational and Charitable Institution registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, that the properties described in the schedule belonged to the plaintiff, that the building and neighbouring building are all situated in Soosaiyapuram and those buildings are put up by the plaintiff six decades ago, and they were all leased out to the various tenants. THE defendants had been in occupation of the building described in the schedule for the last several years and they have paid the rent at the rate mentioned in the respective plaints regularly. THE tenancy was monthly as per the English Calender month. the plaintiff has decided to open anew vistas for keeping computers, telecommunication and audio vision age and also to construct several centers, besides a big hostel for which purpose, the entire property was required and the old buildings then existing were under the occupation of the tenants/defendants. Hence notice to quit was sent to the defendants terminating their tenancy and calling upon them to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property. Though they had acknowledged the receipt of the notice, they had not delivered the suit property. Hence the above said suits were filed.

(3.) THE trial Court framed necessary issues and tried the suit and on trial, all the suits were decreed. Aggrieved defendants took it on first appeals referred to above, which were also dismissed by the first appellate forum. Not satisfied with the same, the defendants have brought forth these second appeals before this Court.