COMMON JUDGMENT

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Challenge in these three appeals is to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos.211/1993, 213/1993 and 215/1993 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. The appellants were the defendants in O.S.Nos.211/1993 and 215/1993 and plaintiffs in O.S.No.213/1993. All the three suits came to be disposed of by way of a common judgment, since the property involved in the suits and the parties were also substantially the same. The appeals in Transferred A.S.Nos.1178 and 1179/2004 were originally filed before the District Court and were transferred to this Court for being heard along with the appeal in A.S.No.518/1996.

2. The suit in O.S.No.211/1993 was filed by the sole respondent in A.S.No.518/1996 seeking recovery of possession of the suit property upon termination of permission licence. The same plaintiff/1st respondent in Transferred A.S.No.1178/2004 had filed a suit in O.S.No.215/1993 seeking damages for use and occupation and for the loss caused by the action of the defendants in not completing the sale transaction. The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.211/1993 and the 4th defendant in O.S.No.215/1993 joined together and filed O.S.No. 213/1993 seeking injunction restraining alienation of the suit property, subject matter of the other two suits, till a sale deed is executed in favour of the plaintiffs in the said suit. The suits were originally filed at Sub Court, Periyakulam, as O.S.No.8/1985 (O.S.No.211/1993), O.S.No.323/1988 (O.S.No.215/1993) and O.S.No.251/1987 (O.S.No. 213/1993). Upon transfer to the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, they were re-numbered as above.

3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.211/1993, the earliest suit for possession, is that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff.

The defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement on 21.06.1986 under which, it was agreed that the defendants would be put in possession of the property for a period of 12 months or until the sale of the property is completed(whichever is earlier). If the sale is not completed within a period of 12 months, the defendants would have to surrender possession on 19th June 1987, upon the expiry of the 12 months period. It was also provided that the agreement can be terminated by either party, by giving a month's notice. It is the claim of the plaintiff that a larger extent of property was put up for sale by inviting public tenders and the defendants were the highest bidders at Rs.65,00,000/-. It was agreed that the plaintiff would convey the property upon the purchasers obtaining sanction from the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Since the defendants did not complete the sale transaction within the period prescribed, the plaintiff by its notice dated 18.05.1987, terminated the agreement and called upon the 2nd defendant to hand over possession of the suit property on or before 20.06.1987. The defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said notice. Another notice was sent on 17.09.1987 calling upon the defendants to vacate and hand over possession of the suit premises. Since the defendants did not comply with the demand made in the suit notice, the plaintiff terming the permission to occupy as a licence, came up with the above suit for recovery of possession. It was also pleaded that there was no intention to create a permanent tenancy or right of occupancy in favour of the defendants beyond 20.06.1987. On the above contentions, the plaintiff sought for recovery of possession.

4. The defendants resisted the said suit, contending that the relationship created under the agreement dated 21.06.1986 is one of landlord and tenant and therefore, the suit is barred under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It was the further contention of the defendants that the plaintiff being a registered Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, all the trustees of the Trust