1. The appellants, as defendants who lost the legal battle before both the Courts below have come forward with this Second Appeal challenging the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No.23 of 2015, dated 14.08.2015, by the II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli by confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.704 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 30.04.2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment, except due process of law by stating that the first defendant is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is a lessee and the first defendant entered into an agreement dated 28.07.2003 under which the plaintiff is running a restaurant in the suit property. The essential terms of the agreement are as follows:

a. The lease is for a period of 10 years.

b. The franchise fee per year is Rs.5,06,000/-. The plaintiff has to pay the annual escalation of 10% every year for the same.

c. There is a transfer of interest in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff to run the restaurant.

d. The plaintiff should furnish bank guarantee.

e. The plaintiff should pay property tax, fee levied by pollution Control Board, EB Charges, sales tax, Luxury Taxes and all other statutory levies to the last defendant every year on or before the 15th day of July of the succeeding year.

f. The plaintiff is permitted to put up superstructure with permission of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff should not claim title to the superstructure to be put up by him or claim any compensation for the same on his surrendering.

g. The plaintiff should cover his establishment under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, Employees State Insurance Act and all other industrial legislation.

h. The 1st defendant shall reserve the right to renew the agreement at its expiry.

i. Any dispute between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant has to be referred to an Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

The plaintiff has complied with all the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff sought permission from the first defendant to provide a sintex tank on the terrace and to convert the non-A/C restaurant to an A/C restaurant and to have an expansion behind the kitchen of the restaurant and after getting permission, he also paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. to utilise the vacant site behind the kitchen. Though the agreement dated 28.07.2003 has been turned as a franchise agreement, it is only lease. The plaintiff has spent more than Rs.50,00,000/- to renovate and to provide amenities to the restaurant with a hope that the lease will be renewed after the expiry of 10 years prescribed in the agreement. Though the period was expired on 30.07.2013, the second defendant by his letter dated 22.07.2013, extended the lease period for six months from 01.08.2013 to 31.01.2014 and for this period, the plaintiff was demanded a sum of Rs.6,30,974/- and the plaintiff paid the same. Again the leased was extended upto 30.04.2014 by letter dated 01.02.2014 by the second defendant and for this period the plaintiff was also paid a sum of Rs.3,07,347/-

4. By letter dated 07.04.2014, the plaintiff requested the first defendant to extend the lease upto finalisation of the tender. However, by letter dated 26.05.2014, the first defendant directed the plaintiff to hand over the vacant possession to the third defendant on 30.05.2014, which was illegal, as the annual lease can be terminated only by giving six months prior notice. The plaintiff filed Arbitration O.P.No.2 of 2014 before the Vacation Civil Court, Tiruchirappalli and obtained injunction and the same was transferred to the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli and renumbered as Arb