T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—When the appeal came up at the interlocutory stage, taking into consideration the only point involved is the validity of the suit notice, both the Counsel wanted the case to be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, the case is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.

2. The above Regular First Appeal is preferred by the Plaintiff in O.S. 10984 of 1996, a suit for possession of the suit schedule property against the dismissal of such suit by the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff is a People Charity Fund, a registered public Charitable Trust, formed for the sole purpose of promoting the welfare of the people at large irrespective of caste, creed or community. The Defendant became a tenant of the Plaintiff in the schedule property on monthly rent of Rs. 1,750/-. Originally he was engaged in the schedule premises as sub-tenant along with the godown constructed thereon by one S.V. Subramaniam and sons and the said S.V. Subramaniam and sons attorned the tenancy in favour of the Plaintiff- trust in view of the settlement decree passed in O.S. 802 of 1973. Plaintiff being a charitable trust requires the schedule premises for its bonafide use and occupation for the purpose of improving the property which was 75 years old and for demolishing the existing structure and putting up a commercial complex in order to augment the funds for utilising the same for the charitable purpose. Claiming that the Plaintiff as charitable trust has to put up the said commercial complex and that the Defendant will not suffer any hardship as the Defendant was using the premises only as godown; the Plaintiff demanded possession disclosing that they have fixed deposit receipts to meet the funds for the project. Thus, demonstrating the financial capacity by filing 44 fixed deposit receipts, a notice was given to the Defendant on 30.12.1995 and by reply dated 27.1.1996 the Defendant contended that it is not interested in handing over vacant possession as the same is required for its own use.

4. Apart from this, the building is old and dilapidated and found to be unfit. Taking action under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation, the Bangalore Municipal Corporation has issued a notice under Section 322(I) on 8.5.1996, calling upon the Plaintiff to show cause as to why the schedule property should not be demolished since the same is in a dilapidated condition and under ruinous state. Having failed in his attempt to get possession from the Defendant, the Plaintiff came forward with the present suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen.

5. The contention put up by the Defendant in the written statement was, firstly the Plaintiff has no subsisting legal right over the suit schedule property and such a suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable in law. Secondly, for the same property a suit for specific performance was decreed against the Plaintiff. Consequently, the Plaintiff has lost title over the property and thus illegally proceeded with the suit against the Defendant for taking possession. Thirdly, notice to quit was challenged as not being in accordance with law and fourthly the notice by the Corporation was issued with oblique purpose. Fifthly, the avowed object of the society to improve its property is not true. Finally, as the Defendant has been using the suit property as a godown since the last several years, the eviction will result in great hardship and inconvenience.

6. On the above pleadings, the Court framed as many as six issues, which are as follows:

1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that it has got right to file the present suit?

2) Whether the Defendant proves that the present suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable as pleaded by him in para 2 of the written statement?

3) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act are not applicable to it/him with regard to eviction of the Defendant from the suit schedule property?

4) Whether the Plaintiff proves that it/