JUDGMENT

The first defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.490 of 2011 before the I Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil for ejectment. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The first defendant filed A.S.No.10 of 2019 before the Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the first defendant.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff Samudhayam at Nagercoil represented by its Managing Trustee. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property was leased out as a site to the first defendant. Originally, the first defendant's father-in-law had taken the land for ground lease and constructed the buildings. After his life time, first defendant's husband is in possession of the suit schedule properties. The lease deed was periodically renewed. The latest lease deed was executed on 01.01.2007 under Exhibit A1 for a period of three years fixing a monthly rent of Rs.780/-. The lease period had expired on 31.12.2009, and thereafter, the lease was not renewed.

4. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendant was not regular in payment of the monthly rent and used to pay the rent in lump sum. In fact, the first defendant had not paid the monthly rent for the period between January 2011 and June 2011. As per the lease deed under Exhibit A1, the defendant is not entitled to sublet the suit schedule properties. However, contrary to the lease agreement, the first defendant has sublet the property to the second and third defendants. Now, the possession of the property is with the sub-lessees.

5. The plaintiff further contended that they issued a legal notice on

04.07.2011 under Exhibit A2, terminating the lease on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting. Though the Postal Department informed the defendant about the notice, the defendant did not make a claim and the notice was returned as unclaimed. Hence, the present suit for ejectment.

6. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff is not a registered society or a trust and hence, the present suit is not maintainable. The defendant further contended that he is a lessee of the site only and he has put up the construction over the suit schedule properties. According to the defendant, the suit schedule property was originally leased to one Mukkia Braminan Potti and his wife Nagaveni Amma, those lessees have put up permanent construction in the suit schedule property. In the year 1946, the defendants husband's grand-father namely, Narayan Nadar had purchased the super-structure along with the lease holder and other movables. The said Narayan Nadar's son Ramalinga Nadar inherited the property. After his life time, first defendant's husband Veerakumara Rajan got the suit schedule property under partition deed, dated 01.06.1985. The tenancy was attorned in favour of the plaintiff. The lease amount was regularly paid without any default. The defendant has also deposited the alleged arrears in the Court and hence, there is no rental arrears as on today. The defendants further contended that there is no prohibition in Exhibit A1 lease deed from subletting the suit schedule properties. According to the first defendant, the second and third defendant are in possession of the suit schedule properties for many years and hence, the plaintiff cannot raise the plea of subletting at this point of time.

7. The defendant also claimed that they have filed C.T.O.P.No.12 of

2011, claiming to purchase the site. The defendants further contended that the notice issued under Exhibit A2 is not proper and maintainable in law.

Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. The trial Court after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a finding that there is a land-lord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the trial Court also fo