The lessee forfeited the right to exercise the option for renewal of the lease due to breach of covenants. The clause authorizing renewal of lease for a further period of fifty years is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 34 of H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959. Granting specific performance is discretionary and injuriously affects the interest of the temple. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred for suits filed by the temple for eviction of tenants/licensees/lessees/mortgagees.

R. BANUMATHI.,J.

1. These appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the learned single Judge in C.S.No.1486 of 1988 and Tr.C.S.No.847 of 1993 dated 14.2.2001, whereby the learned single Judge decreed the suit filed by the Plaintiff Devasthanam directing the Defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession and declining to grant the relief specific performance as prayed by the Defendant-A.N.Kumar. Since the points for determination in both the appeals are one and same, both the appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in Civil Suit No.1486 of 1988 filed before this Court.

2. Case of Plaintiff-Devasthanam is that Plaintiff is the owner of the property measuring about 64 grounds in S.No.41, Sri Arunachalampuram in the village of Urur, erstwhile Saidapet Taluk. According to Plaintiff-Devasthanam, the said 64 grounds was leased to one A.Ranaganatha Mudaliar under lease deed dated 24.02.1937 for a period of 50 years on a monthly rent at the rate of Rs.40/-. As per the lease, the lessee was permitted to erect buildings and superstructures over the property. Further case of Plaintiff is that lessee Ranganatha Mudaliar assigned portions of the lease hold property to some third parties in violation of the lease deed, thereby putting an end to the lease in respect of the forfeited portions. Lessee Ranganatha Mudaliar died leaving the Defendants 1 to 3, the grandsons and 4th Defendant, the granddaughter. Case of Plaintiff is that Defendants 1 to 4 as the legal heirs of the original lessee are entitled to the leasehold right in respect of the remaining property described in 'B' schedule.

3. According to Plaintiff, the period of lease fixed under Ex.A1 lease deed expired on 23.2.1987 and on the expiry of lease, Defendants 1 to 4 have not surrendered possession of the land or the superstructure and they continued to occupy only as tenants holding over. The Plaintiff-Devasthanam, being the public religious Institution and taking into account the interest of the Institution, the lease was not renewed. Since, Defendants failed to deliver possession of the suit property, Plaintiff issued Ex.A2 legal notice which was replied by the 1st Defendant under Ex.A3.

4. Admitting the ownership of Plaintiff-Devasthanam in the suit property and lease in favour of Ranganatha Mudaliar, 1st Defendant filed written statement stating that Ranganatha Mudaliar executed a settlement deed dated 12.4.1939 in favour of 1st defendant. According to 1st Defendant, he had sent a communication dated 10.02.1986 to the Executive Officer of Plaintiff Devasthanam and thereby he has duly exercised the option to renew the lease for a further period of fifty years and therefore the lease stands renewed upto 24.2.2037. The case of 1st defendant is that on the exercise of option, lease stands automatically extended until 24.2.2037 and that he is also entitled to the protection of City Tenants Protection Act. Since the lease automatically got extended, the 1st defendant cannot be asked to surrender possession. In the written statement, the 1st defendant has further referred to certain instances, whereby Devasthanam is said to have sold tenancies between 1953 and 1967 in Sri Arunachalapuram and absolutely there is no reason why those precedents of sale should not be followed in the case of 1st defendant.

5. The 5th Defendant filed written statement stating he is the tenant under the 1st Defendant for Door No.31, Besant Avenue from 1963 onwards and paying the rent regularly to the 1st Defendant. According to 5th Defendant, as Power Agent of 1st Defendant, 1st Defendant's father executed a sale deed dated 22.11.1971 in respect of Door No.10, Arunachalamapuram with the approval of the Trustees of Plaintiff and subsequently sub-lease deed dated 2.2.1972 was executed assigning the leasehold right to one Jagajothi. Further case of 5th Defendant is that since he is in lawful possess