IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA.J C.R.P (PD) No.1283 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos. 7665 & 7667 of 2025 Leela Nambiar (Died)

1.O.Padmanabhan Nambiar @ O.P.Nambiar

2.O.Venugopal Nambiar @ O.V.Nambiar

3.Nirmala Nambiar ... Petitioners vs.

P.Suresh Solomon ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order in IA.No.7 of 2024 in OS.No.131 of 2022 dated 19.11.2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvottiyur.

For Petitioners : Mr. Selvaraj For Mr. D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar For Respondent : Mr. B.Sivaraman

ORDER

Challenging the order passed in IA.No.7 of 2024 in OS.No.131 of

2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvottiyur, the plaintiffs are the petitioners herein. The respondent is the 21^st defendant in the suit OS.No.131 of 2022 and the petitioner in IA.No.7 of 2024. The short facts are as follows.

2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit OS.No.148 of 2014 originally on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri, which was later transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvottiyur and re-numbered as OS.No.131 of

2022. This suit was filed for the following reliefs:

“(a)declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as lessee till 30.04.2061 (i.e., 49 years from 01.05.2012) as per Clause 8 of the registered lease deed in DOC.No.1969/1962 dated 28.04.1962.

(b)Consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming through them in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs as lessees.

(c)In the event of this Hon'ble Court holding that a fresh registered lease deed has to be executed extending the lease, grant a decree of specific performance mandating the defendants who are the legal heirs or successors in interest of Late Rathunissa Bi to extend / continue the lease of the plaint schedule property by executing a registered lease deed in favour of the plaintiffs for a period of 49 years from 1.5.2012 in terms of Clause 8 of registered lease deed dated 28.4.1962 in Doc.No.1969 / 1962 and in the event of the defendants failing to execute the lease deed, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to depute an officer of this Court to execute the lease deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

3. A written statement had been filed by the 21^st defendant and thereafter the 21^st defendant had taken out an application for striking of the plaint in IA.No.3 of 2022. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the 21^st defendant would submit that the suit is a sheer abuse of process of Court since the pleadings and averments in the plaint have been drafted in such a fashion to conceal the true facts. 4. The contention of the 21^st defendant is that the plaintiffs had decided to vacate the demised premises and have entered into a tripartite agreement dated 03.03.2006 with one of the descendant Rathunnissa Bi, in and by which the plaintiffs have given up their lease hold right during the subsistence of the original period of lease, which they admitted, have ended on 30.04.2012 when the National Green Tribunal had stopped the activity with effect from 01.05.2014. Once the plaintiffs have opted to surrender the demised premises, they cannot turnaround and seek extension of the lease. These facts have been suppressed by the plaintiff. They sought for a dismissal of the suit.

5. The 21^st defendant had thereafter filed IA.No.3 of 2022 to strike off the plaint in OS.No.131 of 2022 on the file of the ground that the lease was for the purpose of running and establishing an industry. The plaintiff has suppressed an order dated 25.04.2014 passed by the Pollution Control Board prohibiting the running of the factory in the suit property. Therefore, the purpose of the lease has come to an end. The plaintiff has allowed the encroachment of 30 grounds along the north easte