Unregistered lease deed may be marked as document only for collateral purpose.

These Second Appeals are directed against a common judgment of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S. Nos. 150, 215 and 216 of 1992.

2. O.S. No. 1397 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, was filed on 10-11-1987 by the appellants in the above Second appeals (hereinafter called "appellants") for a declaration that they are entitled to receive rents from the defendants as and when they fell due and for a consequential injunction against the defendants. The suit property admittedly belongs to M/s. Ganesar Ginning Company, the 11th defendant in the suit (hereinafter called

"landlord/first respondent) and according to the appellants the property is a Ginning factory which was leased out to the third plaintiff-firm. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 being the partners of the firm and that defendants 1 to 10 are sub-tenants in possession of various portions and that the landlord was aware of the sub-tenancy and had also acquiesced for the last several years. The plaintiffs also contended that they took the suit properties on lease in the year 1967 and the terms of lease were also reduced in writing. The lease deeds were executed till 31-12-1972 and the plaintiffs thereafter continued as tenants on the same terms and the landlord received rent at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per annum. O.S. No. 512 of 1983 was filed by the landlord against the plaintiffs and their sub-tenants for possession and for damages and the said suit was dismissed as the notice terminating tenancy was found to be defective. In the said judgment the rights of the present plaintiffs to sub-lease the property had been upheld. The said judgment has become final and binding on the parties and the plaintiffs continued in possession as tenants whose rights and liabilities were governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. On 12-5-1987 the landlords had issued a legal notice to quit in accordance with S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the period of notice was to expire only on 12-1-1988 and therefore according to the plaintiffs the tenancy could not be terminated earlier. They had a right to continue as tenants as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and their possession and right to collect rent from the sub-tenants will continue till eviction is ordered by the Court. It was further contended that the suit for possession can be instituted by the landlords only after 12-1-1988. But however, the landlords filed a vexatious suit in O. S. No. 194 of 1987 for a declaration that the sub-lease granted by the plaintiffs were ultra vires and illegal and for injunction restraining the plaintiffs from collecting rents. The said suit was transferred to the Court of District Munsif, Coimbatore and as per ad-interim orders in force, the plaintiffs have been restrained from taking third parties into the suit property and from collecting rent from the other defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the said suit was a misuse of process of Court and the decision in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 512 of 1983 was binding on all the parties. The 11th defendant/the first respondent/landlord was not originally impleaded as a party, but was subsequently added as a party to the suit.

3. In the written statement of the 11th defendant, it was contended that the suit was an abuse of process of Court and having made serious allegations against the 11th defendant, the plaintiffs did not implead the 11th defendant as a party. This conduct of the plaintiffs alone will expose the vexatious nature of the suit. According to the 11th defendant the suit property was leased out to the third plaintiff in the year 1967 and was being renewed from time to time on yearly basis. It was renewed up to 31-12-1972 but subsequently the lease was not renewed. The plaintiff concern was originally managed by Rajamanickam who has now died and it was false to state that the defendants were aware of the induction of the sub-tenant and they had acquiesced the same for the past