A suit for ejectment is maintainable even if there is a change in the representation of the plaintiff, provided there is no change in the plaintiff or the nature of the suit, or the change in the cause of action.

Shivaraj Patil, J.

1. These two appeals arise against the same judgment and decree dated 21. 1992 passed in C.S.No.261 of 1983. O.S.A.No.39 of 1992 is filed by the defendant in the said suit, and O.S.A.No.217 of 1993 is filed by the plaintiff in the same suit. For convenience the parties will be referred to in this judgment as they were arrayed in the suit itself.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the appeals, can be stated thus: The defendant M/s. Sugesan and Company became a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises bearing door No.38, Rajaji Salai, Madras in 1963. The last lease agreement was for a period of five years from 12. 1977 to 30.11.1982 on a rent of Rs.4,000 per month from 12. 1977 to 33. 1978 and at Rs.7,000 per month for remaining period of the lease. The said lease was terminated by notice dated 11. 1982. There was no agreement between the parties for extension of lease, as the defendant was not agreeable to pay future rent atleast at the rate of Rs.2 per sq.ft. Hence the defendant became liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs.48,080 per month from the date of termination of the lease, but the plaintiff restricted its claim only to Rs.24,000 per mensem. This suit was filed for a decree directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the premises and for recovery of Rs.68,000 being the arrears in respect of damages for the period between 12. 1982 to 33. 1983 and damages of Rs.24,000 per month from 4. 1983 till date of delivery.

3. The defendant in his written statement, admitted that be became a tenant of the suit premises even prior to the lease deed. He pleaded that the defendant proposed for renewal of the lease for a further period of five years as stipulated in the agreement offering to pay enhanced rent. The plaintiff was bound to grant renewal of the lease subject to the Court fixing a reasonable rent, the suit filed by the plaintiff as a charitable trust as having been exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, was not maintainable as the notification granting exemption was violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the plaintiff stood up and allowed the defendant to carry out various works of repairs to the building it was estopped from complaining about the same and the defendant was entitled to claim from the plaintiff the expenses for the improvement done to the building no notice of termination dated 11. 1982 terminating the tenancy of the defendant had been received by the defendant; and the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been complied with.

4. In the additional written statement the defendant averred that the suit instituted at the instance of Pachaiyappa’s Trust, represented by its Secretary is not maintainable; the Government of Tamil Nadu had taken over the said trust in 1981; the suit property belonged to P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Trust (for short Chengalvaraya Trust) the suit was not maintainable as it was not filed on behalf of Chengalvaraya Trust; there was vacuum in the office of the trustees of Chengalvaraya Trust and hence neither the committee of management referred to in the Pachaiyappa’s Trust (Takingover of Management) Act 11 of 1991, nor the Secretary of the Pachaiyappa’s Trust could file the suit against the defendant.

5. In the rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs it was stated that the defect if any in regard to the frame of the suit had been cured by reasons of the application for amendment of the plaint as ordered in Application No. 140 of 1989; a Division Bench of this Court held that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11, of 1981 aforementioned did not apply to Chengalvaraya Trust; subsequently the said Act was suitably amended with retrospect effect; besides, the Supreme Court by its order dated 111. 1987 is S.L.P.No. 1 156265 of 1987 had appointed there additional members of the Pac