M.S. Sonak, J.

Heard Mr. Girish Togani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11th April, 2017 made by the learned trial Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

3. Mr. Togani, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is a case where the plaint discloses no cause of action. By way of elaboration, Mr. Togani submits that the suit seeking the petitioner's eviction from the suit premises is not maintainable because the petitioner is admittedly lessee in respect of the suit premises. He submits that there is a clause in the leasedeed for renewal the lease term. In pursuance of such clause, the petitioner has in fact exercised the option for renewal. He relies on State of U.P. and Others Vs. Lalji Tandon (Dead), (2004) 1 SCC 1, to contend that where a covenant for renewal exists, its exercise is an unilateral act of the lessee, and the consent of the lessor is unnecessary. Mr. Togani submits that these factors warrant the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it fails to disclose any cause of action.

4. Mr. Togani further submits that there is no proper termination of the lease in the present case. He submits that so called notice of termination is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He submits that this is yet another ground for rejection of the plaint for failure to disclose cause of action.

5. Mr. Togani submits that the leasedeed in the present case was executed by an individual Vithuram Shivlal Lahoti (lessor). However the suit has been instituted by a trust. There is no cause of action for the trust to institute a suit of the present nature and therefore the plaint warrants rejection by resort to the provisions of the Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.

6. Finally, Mr. Togani criticised the impugned order by submitting that the learned trial Judge has unnecessarily gone into the issues of prior approval from the Charity Commissioner or the failure of all the trustees to institute the suit, when these were not the grounds on which the petitioner had sought for the rejection of the plaint. He submits that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and consequently there is jurisdictional error in not rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.

7. The impugned order has been made by the learned trial Judge below Exhibit51, in which, the petitioner (original Defendant No.1) had applied for the following reliefs :

"(10) It is therefore prayed that

(a) Hon'ble court may be pleased to frame preliminary issue, as to whether the suit is maintainable at law and is barred by law:

(b) Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit or return the plaint, as the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice and oblige.

(c) Any other relief as the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may be granted."

8. The learned trial Judge, at paragraph 4 of the impugned order has recorded that the Advocate for the petitioner (Defendant No.1) had invoked the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in order to contend that the plaint discloses no cause of action. The contentions raised by the Advocate for the petitioner have been noted in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. However, most of such contentions are now disowned by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court.

9. Insofar as the contentions which are now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, none of them support the petitioner's contention that the plaint in the present case fails to disclose any cause of action. Most of the contentions seem to suggest the plaintiff in the suit has no cause of action to institute the suit. Now, this is quite different and distinct from the contention that the plaint fails to disclose any cause of action.

Unless the petitioner makes out the case that t