The court affirmed the landlord's right to terminate a lease upon expiration and demand reasonable rent, ruling that eviction suits do not require sub-tenants to be joined as parties.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2022 in C.S. No. 121/2003 passed by this Court.

1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge dated 04.11.2022 decreeing the suit in C.S. No. 121/2003.

2. The defendants in the suit in C.S. No. 121/2003 are the appellants in the above Original Side Appeal preferred as against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2022 in C.S. No. 121/2003, directing the appellants/defendants to vacate the suit premises and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiffs after removing all the constructions put up therein within three months and to pay past damages to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- for occupation of the property from 01.07.2002 to 31.01.2003 and to pay future damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from 01.02.2003 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit property.

3. The 1st respondent as plaintiff, filed the suit in C.S. No. 121/2003 against the appellants herein, who are the legal heirs of late Mr. K.N. Kutty representing the Estate of Mr. K. Muhammed Kutty. The 1st respondent/plaintiff in C.S. No. 121/2003, prayed for a judgment and decree directing the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the land after removing the superstructure put up by the defendants within the time to be fixed by the Court and to direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff Trust a sum of Rs.3,26,064/- being past damages for wrongful use of property from 01.07.2002 to 31.01.2003 and to direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff Trust future damages at Rs.50,000/- per month for the wrongful use and occupation of the property from 01.02.2003 till the date of delivery of vacant possession.

4. The suit property is a vacant land measuring an extent of 24,310 sq. ft. within the compound of St. Peters Church, Royapuram, bearing Door Nos.13 and 14, South Mada Street, Royapuram comprised in R.S. No. 287/1, Block No. 9. In the suit, the 1st defendant, M/s.Samad and Co., was shown as the Estate of K.Muhammed Kutty constituting the legal heirs of Late Sri. K.N. Kutty represented by one of the legal heirs of Mr. K. Muhammed Kutty. It is not necessary to elaborate the other particulars about other defendants who are all the other legal heirs of late Sri. K.Muhammed Kutty as no other issue relating to the relationship arise for consideration.

5. The case of the 1st respondent is that the 1st respondent as plaintiff, is a public charitable and religious Trust governed by the Scheme framed by the High Court of Madras in C.S. No. 10/1949 dated 12.03.1953. Though the Scheme decree was confirmed in OSA No. 63/1953, it is admitted that the Scheme was subsequently modified in C.S. No. 134/1973 as per the order dated 26.04.1988 passed in OSA No. 94/79.

6. It is stated in the plaint that the 1st defendant became a tenant under the plaintiff Trust in respect of the suit property in S. No. 287/1 under a registered Lease Deed dated 06.09.1996 for a period of five years. However, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership and the Lease Deed dated 06.09.1996 even though it is stated that the original Lease Deed was from an earlier date. It is admitted by the defendants even in the written statement that the 1st defendant became tenant under the plaintiff Trust from 1948 and continued to be a tenant for about six decades.

7. As per the latest Lease Deed under which the lease was extended for a period of five years from 06.09.1996, it is stated by the plaintiff that the Lease Deed expired on 31.08.2001 by efflux of time. As per Clause 4[1] of Lease Deed dated 06.09.1996, there is a provision for renewal of lease. It is the case of the plaintiff that the rent payable has to be mutually agreed upon by the plaintiff Trust and the 1st defendant for extension of lease. In the plaint, it is stated th