The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lease deed was executed without prior permission, and the cancellation order was not supported by any statutory provision. The court also found that the principles of res judicata, sections 146, 156, and Rule 115 did not apply to the case.

1. The appellant herein is Dharmapuri Handlooms Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Limited, represented by its Special Officer, the plaintiff who filed the suit-O.S.No.22/2000 against S.Lakshmi-defendant/respondent herein/tenant, seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property. Though the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court, the learned first appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the reversed findings of the learned first appellate Court, this Second Appeal has been brought by the plaintiff Co-operative Society.

2. The plaintiff Cooperative Society being an absolute owner of the suit property, on being approached by the defendant to take on lease, the President of the Co-operative Society passed a resolution dated 29.2.1988 agreed to lease out the suit property in favour of the defendant for a period of 15 years on a monthly rent of Rs.104.70paise and in the said resolution, it was mentioned that only after the prior sanction from the Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Salem the lease will be granted, but contrary to the terms of the resolution, the President who is one of the Directors of the petitioner society granted the lease without obtaining any prior sanction, however, when this irregularity was brought to the notice of the Assistant Director of Handlooms, after issuing notices to the defendant to come for enquiry, finding no response from the defendant, passed an order cancelling the lease on 30.10.1991, yet the defendant continued as a trespasser even without paying monthly rent for more than a decade, hence the suit for delivery of possession was filed. In the meanwhile, after the lease agreement, when the defendant for quite some time started acting against the interest of the Society in an effort to claim absolute right over the suit property by putting up constructions for running a hotel in the name and style of “Pandian Mess” without even any consent or permission from the plaintiff Co-operative Society, the same was objected by the plaintiff. However, the defendant/respondent herein/tenant illegally completed the construction. As the said act is against the interest of the plaintiff Cooperative Society, the plaintiff found that the defendant is not entitled to continue with the possession of the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff Co-operative Society requested the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property. But, for one reason or the other, the defendant/tenant refused to surrender possession. Under these circumstances, when the Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Salem was informed about the illegal construction of the superstructure made by the defendant/respondent and without the consent or prior approval of the plaintiff Cooperative Society the lease deed was executed, on proper examination of the fact whether the defendant has put up any unauthorised construction, has passed an order dated 30.10.1991 canceling the lease deed for the reason that the then President of the Co-operative Society while passing a resolution dated 29.2.1988 agreed to lease out the suit property in favour of the defendant has specifically mentioned in the resolution that only after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, the lease would be executed. But as decided in the resolution to take prior permission for granting lease, no such prior permission was granted. Even before passing the cancellation order, the defendant himself came forward to vacate and hand over the suit property on the expiry of the lease period. However, the defendant refused to do so. Even after the cancellation of lease deed when the defendant continued as a trespasser, even without paying the rent for more than a decade, the plaintiff Co-operative Society in tune with complying the due process of law filed the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff Cooperative Society was constrained to file a suit for recovery of p