On expiry of lease period owner is entitled to seek possession without issuing notice.

1. The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, in C.M.A.No.33 of 1996 in I.A.No.430 of 1996 in O.S.No.726 of 1996 confirming the order of the learned Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil, granting injunction pending suit in favour of the respondent.

2. The suit O.S.No.726 of 1996, itself has been filed for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent/plaintiff as lessee over the plaint schedule property and from evicting her from the property by force or illegal or unlawful means or by any methods against law and Justice and from leasing out the plaint schedule property to any person other than heirs and also from conducting any lease auction, etc., by affecting her rights over the plaint schedule property.

3. There is an interesting background to the case and the background is only far too familiar. The property, subject matter of the proceedings, is a rice mill which had been taken by the respondent in an auction held in the year 1991 for a period of three years. Sealed tenders were called for and the plaintiffs offer was Rs.5,500 per month. She also deposited five months rent in a sum of Rs.27,500 on 16. 1991 as deposit and also submitted draft security bond for Rs.10,00,000. A fair security bond was also to be executed after the draft was approved. In the meantime, the revision petitioner/defendant issued a paper publication on 17. 1991 to lease out the plaint schedule property for the period of three years with effect from 8. 1991. There was a suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.678 of 1991 before the District Munsifs Court, Nagercoil for injunction. An interim injunction was also obtained restraining the defendant from leasing out the schedule property to any person other than the plaintiff. There was an agreement reached between the parties and a compromise was effected and the suit was withdrawn on 19. 1991. There was a registered lease deed executed on 18. 1991 and the plaintiff got the lease for a period of two years from 9. 1991 to 38. 1993. There was some delay in getting the rice mill licence from the Government by the defendant and it was alleged that the plaintiff was not able to conduct her rice mill business with effect from 5. 1991 onwards. After the licence was given by the Government, the defendant executed another unregistered lease deed on 25. 1992 by extending the lease period from 6. 1992 to 35. 1994. Before the expiry of the Lease period, the defendant, according to the plaintiff, attempted to lease out the plaint schedule property to others and the plaintiff filed another suit in O.S.No.294 of 1994 and obtained an order of injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant agreed to extend the period of tenancy for a period of two years and hence the petition to withdraw the said suit was filed on 5. 1994. There was another lease deed executed on 17. 1994 extending the lease period by another two years from 6. 1994 to 35. 1996. The rent was also raised to Rs.7,500 and the deposit amount of Rs.37,500 by way of five months rent was paid to the defendant. It is the case of the respondent that without terminating the tenancy according to law, the different and was trying to lease out the property to others. The lease was for a manufacturing purpose and since the defendant was trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff by illegal and unlawful method, the present suit came to be filed. The defendant had given a paper publication on 15. 1996 inviting tenders for leasing out the plaint schedule property.

4. Pending the suit, an application in I.A.No.430 of 1996 was filed for temporary injunction. The learned District Munsif, by an order dated 7. 1996, made the interim injunction already granted absolute. This was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge in C.M.A.No.33 of 1996.

5. It is rather unf