T. Ravindran, J.

The appellants 2 to 4 before the first Appellate Court have in this Second Appeal impugned the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2010 made in A.S. No. 71 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2009 made in O.S.No.316 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.

2. Suit for possession and damages.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The plaintiff's Trust is represented by its Manager E.V.K.S. Elangovan. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff and that the same was leased out to the defendant. In as much as the defendant was not regular in the payment of rent and also as the property is required by the plaintiff for putting up shopping complex to augment its income, the plaintiff by notice dated 13.06.1997 terminated the tenency of the defendant and despite the same the defendant did not vacate the suit property and hand over the possession, instead sent a reply containing false allegations. Hence, the suit.

4. The case of the defendant in brief is as follows :

The defendant has taken various pleas to non suit the plaintiff. As far as the pleas required for the purpose of disposing of the Second Appeal is that E.V.K.S. Elangovan has to prove that he is the Manager of the Trust and competent to file the present suit on behalf of the Trust and the Trust has not produced any resolution regarding the decision of the construction of the suit building or to file the present legal action and hence prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 has been examined. Ex.A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW 1 has been examined. Ex.B1 was marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for.

6. The first Appeal was preferred by the defendant and pending Appeal the defendant having died, his legal representatives have been brought on record as the appellants. The first Appellate Court also on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties was pleased to confirm the judgment and decree of the trial court. Challenging the same, the present Second appeal has been laid.

7. The Second Appeal was admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this Second Appeal:

(a) Whether the termination of tenancy by the issuance of Ex.B1, notice by the Manager is not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and whether the said notice took equity as ineffective?

(b) Whether the suit filed by the Manager of the Trust and not by the Trustees joined together, is not maintainable?

8. In as much as the questions of law canvassed in this Second Appeal do not require the necessity of explaining the case of the parties in detail, it is suffice to confine the facts at issue between the parties, as regards the substantial questions of law formulated for consideration in this Appeal.

9. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff, Venkatanaicker Trust, represented by its Manager, Thiru. E.V.K.S. Elangovan, B.A., The lease of the defendant has been terminated by the plaintiff under the notice dated 13.06.1997, which has been marked as Ex.A1. Repudiating the claim of the plaintiff under Ex.A1, the defendant has sent a reply.

10. The main point that is urged by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that the suit as framed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and on that score alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Though that the frame of the suit is not maintainable had been canvased before the Courts below also, however, the Courts below did not entertain the same. It is argued by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have erred in not following the principles of law adumbrated in the decisions placed before them on behalf of th