SUGESAN AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PACHAIAYPPAS TRUST AND SCHEDULED PUBLIC TRUST AND ENDOWMENTS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise against the same judgment and decree dated 28.1.1992 passed in C.S.No. 261 of 1983. O.S.A.No. 39 of 1992 is filed by the defendant in the said suit, and O.S.A.No. 217 of 1993 is filed by the plaintiff in the same suit. For convenience the parties will be referred to in this judgment as they were arrayed in the suit itself.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these appeals, can be stated thus:

(3.) The defendant in his written statement, admitted that he became a tenant of the suit premises even prior to the lease deed. He pleaded that the defendant proposes for renewal of the lease for a further period of five years as stipulated in the agreement offering to pay enhanced rent. The plaintiff was bound to grant renewal of the lease subject to the court fixing a reasonable rent; the suit filed by the plaintiff as a charitable trust as having been exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, was not maintainable as the Notification granting exemption was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; since the plaintiff stood up and allowed the defendant to carry out various works of repairs to the building it was estopped from complaining about the same, and the defendant was entitled to claim from the plaintiff the expenses for the improvement done to the building; no notice of termination dated 6.11.1982 terminating the tenancy of the defendant had been received by the defendant; and the provisions of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been complied with.