The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the eviction notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing that the phrase 'hereby terminates' does not imply immediate termination.

1. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suits in O.S.Nos.637 and 639 of 1987 against the appellants for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for damages on the basis that the 1st defendant-firm in the respective cases are the tenant with respect to the appellants' buildings in question leased out to the 1st defendant. By issuing a notice on 29.10.86 and terminating the tenancy, the Ist respondent/plaintiff sought for possession of the buildings leased out to the 1st defendant. Since possession was not handed over, plaintiff filed the above suits.

2. The defendants contested the suits contending inter alia that the suits are not maintainable as the civil court has no jurisdiction to sustain the suits. According to the defendants/tenants though the plaintiff is the trust, the proper remedy to recover possession is only under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called the Act, as the plaintiff-trust is not exempted from the purview of the Act. It is also contended that the notice to terminate the tenancy is not in accordance with Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further defended that since the plaintiff has come forward with the plea that the properties belong to the Wakf Board, and the competent person has not filed the suits, the suits are not maintainable under the provisions of The Indian Wakf Act. In O.S.No. 639 of 1987 the defendants have raised the additional defence stating that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder and also misjoinder of parties.

3. The trial court rejecting the case of the defendants and accepting the case of the plaintiff decreed the suits as prayed for. So the defendants filed Appeal in A.S.Nos.84 and 85 of 1991. The learned District Judge also concurred with the findings of the trial court dismissed the Appeals. Hence these Second Appeals.

4. Thesubstantial questions of law that were formulated in these second appeals are:

(1) Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit which is admittedly covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 and that there is no evidence to show that the property falls within the purview of G.O.Ms.No.2000 Home dated 16.8.1976?

(2) Whether the courts below were right in holding that it is. for the defendants to establish that the property falls within the mischief of above G.O. and that since the defendants have not let in evidence to show that the property is not trust property, the suit is maintainable?

(3) Whether the courts below were right in entertaining the suit itself when P.W.1 himself has stated in cross-examination that the property belongs to the Wakf Board when the Wakf Board has not instituted any suit, is it open to the President of the Madarasa Dawoodiya Arabic College Trust to institute a suit, particularly when there is no authorisation?

(4) Whether the notice terminating the tenancy is in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act?

5. There is no dispute that the 1st appellant/lst defendant, the firm are the tenants under the 1st respondent/plaintiff with respect to the respective suit properties. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff had issued notice on 29.10.86 asking the tenants to hand over possession of the suit properties on or before 30th November 1986.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that - (l)the 1st respondent/plaintiff has not established that they are public trust so as to enable them to get exemption from the provisions of the Act, granted under G.O.Ms.NO.2000, Home, dated 16.8.76;

(2) the notice of termination issued on 29.10.86 marked as Ex.A7 is not in accordance with and in compliance of the provisions of Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act;

(3) though the plaintiff has claimed that the properties belong to the Wakf Board, it has not been established that they have registered their Wakf with the Wakf Board, and they have not obtained permission from the