JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1999, passed in O.S.No.217/97, by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, as confirmed in the judgment and decree, dated 12.01.2001, passed in AS.No.124/1999, on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, the present second appeal has been preferred. The plaintiff, who lost before both the courts below is the appellant herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the trial court. 3. The plaintiff/appellant states that the suit property belongs to the second defendant, which is a public trust. The first defendant took possession of the scheduled premises and southern part of it. Subsequently, the first defendant retained the said southern part of the property for its administrative purpose and let out the scheduled premises to the plaintiff, after receiving a sum of Rs.80,000/- as 'pagadi', for which no receipt was issued. However, the first defendant issued receipt for Rs.10,000/- as deposit and the monthly rent agreed upon was for Rs.1,500/-. The said rent should be paid on or before 5th of every succeeding English Calendar month. Further, the plaintiff agreed to pay electricity consumption charges in the name of first defendant to the Electricity Board. The plaintiff produced the copy of the receipts, issued by the first defendant as Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Ex.A.11. According to the plaintiff, he was paying rents regularly and in February 1997, as soon as President of the first defendant was elected, he asked the plaintiff to produce the rent receipts for verification. Accordingly, the plaintiff produced the original receipts upto January 1997 and the same were taken away by the President of the first defendant for verification, but the same were not returned to the plaintiff till filing of the suit. Subsequently, when the plaintiff offered rent to the first defendant, it was not received. Hence, the plaintiff sent the rent for the months of February to May 1997 by Money Order on 27.05.1997, but that also was returned. The plaintiff has produced the said Money Order receipts as Exs.A.9 and A.10. The plaintiff further stated that with malafide intention to evict him from the premises, the rent given by him was refused by the first defendant. Further from 17.06.1997 onwards, the first defendant was insisting the plaintiff to vacate the premises. The plaintiff has produced the said Money Order receipts as Exs.A.9 and A.10. The plaintiff further stated that with malafide intention to evict him from the premises, the rent given by him was refused by the first defendant. Further from 17.06.1997 onwards, the first defendant was insisting the plaintiff to vacate the premises. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit seeking permanent injunction, restraining the first defendant from evicting him from the suit property and the second defendant, who is the owner of the property is impleaded in the suit as formal party. 4. On the other hand, the first defendant, who entered appearance in the suit contends that the plaintiff is not a tenant under him. According to him, a tenancy agreement for 11 months in writing was entered into on 02.05.1996 and the same has expired by 02.04.1997. The said agreement is produced as Ex.B.1. Thus, it is contended that the tenancy period is over and the plaintiff is not a tenant subsequent to 02.04.1997. On that ground, the first defendant contends that the suit itself is not maintainable and the relief sought for by the plaintiff is unsustainable. It is further stated by the first defendant that the plaintiff committed default in payment of rent from February 1997 and the claim that Rs.80,000/- was paid as 'pagadi' is also not correct. After deducting the rent arrears, the first defendant offered to return the balance out of total deposit of Rs.10,000/-, but the plaintiff refused to receive the same. Thus, the first defendant contends that the plaintiff is a trespasser in the suit property and he is to be evicted. Hence, the first defendant seeks dismissal of the suit. 5. The second respondent has not come forward to contest and remained exparte. 6. The trial court, on perusal of pleadings, framed the following issues: “LANGUAGE” 7. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself and another witness as P.Ws.1 & 2 and produced Exs.A.1 to A.12 on his side. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 8. The trial court, on consideration of the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence, found that as per Ex.B.1/Rental Agreement, the property was let out on rent to the plaintiff to run Coffee Stall only. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 8. The trial court, on consideration of the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence, found that as per Ex.B.1/Rental Agreement, the property was let out on rent to the plaintiff to run Coffee Stall only. Further, it is also pointed out by the trial court that the plaintiff has not stated anything about Ex.B.1-Rental Agreement in the plaint. It is also pointed out by the trial court that nothing is mentioned about payment of rent for loan in the plaint and in the plaint, it is stated that in the northern portion of the property in door No.148, a Canteen is being run, but nothing is stated about the vacant site. However, in Ex.B.1-Rental agreement, it is stated that the first defendant is not willing to continue the business in the Stall in door No.148, Western Car Street and they are letting out the same to the plaintiff on deposit of Rs.10,000/- on payment of rent. Further, P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that he took the suit property only to run the coffee stall, which is already functioning in it. The trial court also pointed out that as per Ex.B.1-Rental agreement, the said period of tenancy was over on 02.04.1997 and the tenancy was not renewed subsequently. In Ex.B.1-Rental Agreement, it is categorically stated that in the event of non-renewal of tenancy, the plaintiff will hand over the property to the first defendant. There is nothing on record to show that any step was taken by the plaintiff to renew the tenancy period before its expiry. He also paid rent from May 1996 to November 1996, as per Exs.A.2 to A.8. Further, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.12 that the plaintiff has taken the property, where the first defendant was running a Canteen for rent and he was running the Canteen therein. Apparently, the tenancy agreement has expired even before the suit was filed. On completion of 11 months period, as per Ex.B.1, unless and until the tenancy was renewed, the plaintiff is bound to hand over the property to the first defendant in the absence of any evidence to show that after expiry of Ex.B.1-Rental Agreement, the plaintiff entered into a new agreement with the first defendant. On completion of 11 months period, as per Ex.B.1, unless and until the tenancy was renewed, the plaintiff is bound to hand over the property to the first defendant in the absence of any evidence to show that after expiry of Ex.B.1-Rental Agreement, the plaintiff entered into a new agreement with the first defendant. In such circumstances, since tenancy period has ended by 02.04.1997, the plaintiff cannot claim to be a tenant in the suit property, after that date. Thus, he cannot be considered as a lawful tenant, at the time of filing of the suit. When his tenancy right is no longer in existence, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of injunction and holding so, the trial court dismissed the suit. 9. Aggrieved over the said finding of the trial court, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.124 of 1999 on the file of the District Judge, Tirunelveli and the same was made over to First Additional District Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli for disposal. 10. The lower appellate court, after going through the grounds of appeal, framed the following points for determination: “LANGUAGE” 11. The said A.S.No.124 of 1999 was taken up for disposal along with connected appeal in A.S.No.238 of 1999 and Cross Appeal No.226 of 2000. The lower appellate court, on consideration of the available materials, held that the second defendant let out the suit property to the first defendant on 01.10.1980 and the tenancy was made as per the English Calendar month. According to the second defendant, who is the owner of the property, the first defendant was the tenant and the property was sub-leased to the plaintiff, without their knowledge and consent, by the first defendant. The first appellate court categorically held that sub-lease is not permissible and further, the tenancy period of the first defendant himself has been over. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought for and upheld the conclusion arrived at by the trial court. The first appellate court also held in connected appeal in A.S.No.238 of 1999 that the second defendant being the owner of the property, has terminated the tenancy rights of the first defendant and as such, the plaintiff herein who took the property for rent from the said original tenant/first defendant herein is not entitled to seek for injunction in respect of the suit property. Holding so, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal, filed by the plaintiff vide its judgment, dated 12.01.2001 in A.S.Nos.124 of 1999 and 238 of 1999. 12. Challenging the legality of the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 13. In the memorandum of grounds, the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration: “(i) Whether the plaintiff who is admittedly in possession as a tenant as per the agreement marked as Ex.P.1 can be deemed to be a person in wrongful possession after the expiry period of tenancy? (ii) Whether the plaintiff being a statutory tenant entitled for the protection under law can be non-suited under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act Sec.54 & 55 especially when the plaintiff's prayer itself is not to evict him without due process of law?” 14. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the property was leased out to the plaintiff, on monthly rent and he has paid the rent regularly without any default and is holding over the property. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to seek permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from evicting him except by due process of law. 15. On the other hand, opposing the same, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the tenancy right of the plaintiff is over long back and he is no longer a tenant in the premises and as such, he is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and the finding of the courts below is just and proper. Hence, the respondent seeks dismissal of the same. 16. While advancing the arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff conceded that the possession of the property has been handed over long back and the plaintiff is no longer in possession of the suit property. The learned counsel for the first defendant also conceded that the plaintiff is no longer in possession of the property and the premises was handed over to the second defendant. 17. In such circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff is not in possession. Hence, he is not entitled for the relief of injunction sought for by him. The learned counsel for the first defendant also conceded that the plaintiff is no longer in possession of the property and the premises was handed over to the second defendant. 17. In such circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff is not in possession. Hence, he is not entitled for the relief of injunction sought for by him. Further, the courts below, while considering the issue raised before them have appropriately concluded that on the date of filing of suit itself, the plaintiff was not a lawful tenant in the suit premises and as the tenancy period expired, he is only a trespasser and on that ground, held that the relief sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the discretionary relief of injunction. In such circumstances, considering the above said circumstances and the fact that the possession of the property is no longer with the plaintiff, the conclusion and the reasons stated for the same by the courts below being just and proper, this Court is of the view that the same warrant no interference. 18. The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant/plaintiff have already been answered by the courts below. This Court, on careful consideration of the materials available, concludes that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for by him and the substantial questions of law raised in the second appeal are answered against the plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the court below warrants no interference. 19. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, by confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1999 passed in O.S.No.217/97 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli. No costs.