( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgement dated 26-11-1984 in A. S. No. 95 of 1981 on the file of the Additional district Judge, Vizianagaram under which the judgement dated 12-4-1980 in O. S. No. 414 of 1974 on the file of the Principal district Munsif at Vizianagaram decreeing the suit was confirmed.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant to this appeal may be stated briefly as follows: defendant is the appellant herein and the respondents are the plaintiffs. Parties shall be referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed in the trial Court.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 414 of 1974 on the file of the Principal District Munsif. Vizianagaram for evicting the defendant from the suit schedule property and for recovery of rents and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 3rd plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. He conveyed the same to the 2nd plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 30-12-1971 and relinquishment deed dated 31-1-1972. Subsequently, the 2nd plaintiff was admitted to the benefits of partnership of the 1st plaintiff on 1-10-1972 and in pursuance of the same, the plaint schedule property is vested in 1st plaintiff. The defendant took the suit schedule property on lease from the 3rd plaintiff on 9-12-1967 for the period commencing from 1-7-1988 to 31-12-1970 on monthly rent of Rs. 25. 00 and a licence fee of Rs. 25. 00 payable on the first day of each month. The tenancy was said to be from month to month. The defendant agreed to remove the structures raised by him in the plaint schedule property after expiry of the lease period and to vacate the suit premises without any notice. Lease period expired by 31-12-1979 but the defendant did not vacate the suit property. He also failed to pay rents and licence fee after 31-3-1973. The tenancy was, therefore terminated by 31-1-1974 by issuing a notice on 20-6-1974. The defendant paid rents to the 2nd plaintiff upto 30-9-1972 and thereafter to the 1st plaintiff from 1-10-1972 to 31-3-1973. After termination of tenancy, the possession of the defendant is wrongful and he is liable to pay mesne profits till he delivers vacant possession of the property.

( 4 ) THE defendant s plea is that the 3rd plaintiff has no right to dispose of the suit property, as it is a part of Prince of Wales market and entire market is the subject matter of a Trust and the 3rd plaintiff being only a trustee, the sale deed and relinquishment deed which are referred to in the plaint are not valid and enforceable. Partnership firm in the name of 1st plaintiff is a make believe firm. The 1st plaintiff has no business. It is also pleaded that the 3rd plaintiff acting as a guardian of 2nd plaintiff has no right to transfer minor s properties. It is pleaded that since the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are not claiming any right, title or interest in the plaint schedule property, the 1st plaintiff also has no right or title in the said property and as such the suit for eviction and mesne profits is not maintainable. It is admitted that the defendant has taken plaint schedule property on lease, but it is pleaded that the lease is not terminable and the averment that lease expires by 31-12-1970 and that there was termination of tenancy by 31-7-1974 is denied.

( 5 ) IT is further pleaded that the lease was granted for the building purpose in the market place. In view of creation of trust in respect of the market place it has not been the custom, practice or usage to evict the tenants from the property and as such the defendant cannot be evicted from the suit property. It is not correct to contend that the defendant did not pay rent after 31-3-1973. The staff of 3rd plaintiff collected the rents. The defendant is not liable to pay any interest, as there is no contract. It is stated that the relinquishment deed was vitiated by fraud on stamp and registration. It is further pleaded that the suit property is an impartible estate and 3rd plaintiff cannot alienate the same.

( 6