ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.71 of 2014 in A.S.No.21 of 2013 dated 24.08.2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai, thereby, allowing the petition to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. 2. The petitioners are the respondents in A.S.No.21 of 2013 and the respondent is the appellant in the Appeal Suit. The respondent originally filed a suit for ejection, thereby directing the petitioners herein to surrender possession of the suit property and put the respondent into possession of the suit property and the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal suit. While pending the appeal suit, the respondent filed a petition seeking permission of the Appellate Court to withdraw the suit filed by him with liberty to file a fresh suit. The same was allowed and aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent already filed the eviction petition. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and also confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.2587 of 1997 and this Court by an order dated 27.11.1998 allowed the Civil Revision Petition by observing that the property, assuming that it belonged to the respondent, is a Public Charitable Property and the Rent Control Act will not apply. When the Revision Petitioners denied relationship of landlord and tenant, it was incumbent for the respondent to have established by un-impeachable evidence that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioners but the respondent had failed to establish. After dismissal of the eviction petition, the respondent again come forward with the suit for ejectment directing the petitioners to surrender possession of the suit property. The present suit is also filed only on the ground that there is landlord and tenant relationship between them and even till today they did not pay any rent for the suit property and the petitioners are in huge arrears of rent even prior to the termination of tenancy. The present suit is also filed only on the ground that there is landlord and tenant relationship between them and even till today they did not pay any rent for the suit property and the petitioners are in huge arrears of rent even prior to the termination of tenancy. The said suit was also dismissed on the ground that the respondent failed to prove him as landlord in respect of the suit property and he failed to produce any document to show that the respondent is the owner of the property. 4. The trial Court also held that when the respondent failed to prove his ownership in respect of the suit property he has no right to lease out the suit property in favour of the petitioners herein. Therefore, all the issues framed by the trial Court were answered in favour of the petitioners and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal suit and while pending the appeal suit, the respondent filed a petition to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, that too without setting aside the decree passed against him by the trial Court. The first Appellate Court without considering those aspects simply allowed the petition and permitted the respondent to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. In support of his contentions he also relied upon the judgment reported 2000 (III) CTC 558 (Bhoopoathy, K.S. -vs- Kokila). 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when the respondent filed a suit for ejectment, the trial Court ought not to have gone into the question of title over the suit property. The findings of the Court below is completely alien to the suit filed on the relationship of the landlord and tenant. He further submitted that the suit property admittedly is a public charitable property and the petitioners failed to pay any rent even till today and simply enjoying the property. He further submitted that the suit is valued under Section 43 (2) of the Court Fees Act and as such, the Court below ought not to have decided the suit, as if it was filed for declaration of title. In support of his contentions he relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court passed in CMA.No.167 of 2012 dated 25.10.2017. 6. In support of his contentions he relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court passed in CMA.No.167 of 2012 dated 25.10.2017. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. The petitioners are the respondents in the appeal suit filed by the respondent herein. The respondent filed a suit for ejection directing the petitioners to surrender possession of the suit property and to put the respondent in possession of the suit property. The respondent avered that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff. The suit property is a charitable property endowed for using as a choultry for the Vaaniyar Community. It was endowed for charitable purposes by one Kandasamy Chettiyar under a Will dated 21.07.1926. The suit property along with other properties were maintained and managed by him and after his demise, his descendants have managed the suit property. While being so, one of the descendants leased out the suit property to one Somasundaram under the oral arrangement in the year 1977 for the monthly rent of Rs.100/-. Thereafter, the said Somasundaram was in arrears of payment of rent and as such, the plaintiff filed a petition for eviction in RCOP.No.9 of 1985 before the learned Rent Controller, Sirkali on the ground of wilful default. However, it was dismissed for default on 20.02.1989. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another petition for eviction as against the said Somsundaram in RCOP.No.11 of 1990 on the ground of wilful default and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein, being the legal heirs of the said Somasundaram, filed appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.2587 of 1997 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 27.11.1998 allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.11 of 1990. While allowing this Civil Revision Petition, this Court observed as follows:- “15. From the forgoing, it has to be held that the property assuming, that it belonged to the respondent/society is a public charitable property and the Rent Control Act would not apply. 16. The next question is regarding the landlord/tenant relationship. While allowing this Civil Revision Petition, this Court observed as follows:- “15. From the forgoing, it has to be held that the property assuming, that it belonged to the respondent/society is a public charitable property and the Rent Control Act would not apply. 16. The next question is regarding the landlord/tenant relationship. P.Ws.1 and 2 have admitted that there was no entry in the accounts relating to payment of rent by the revision petitioners in the accounts of the respondent/society. When the revision petitioners had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, it was incumbent on the respondent to have established by un-impeachable evidence that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the deceased/Somasundaram and this, the respondent had failed to establish.” 8. This Court held that the respondent /society is a public charitable property and as such, the Rent Control Act would not apply. Further, it was held that the when the petitioners categorically denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant, it was incumbent on the respondent to have established by un-impeachable evidence that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent. Even then, the respondent failed to file suit for recovery of possession on the title of the suit schedule property. Whereas, the respondent filed a present suit for ejectment directing the petitioners to surrender possession of the suit property and to put the respondent possession of the same, the trial Court framed the following the issues:- Image 9. While answering issues 1 and 2, the Court below concluded that the plaintiff's association is not registered one. The plaintiff's association failed to prove that the association is registered under the Societies Act and also failed to prove that one Annamalai Chettiyar is elected representative to represent on behalf of the plaintiff's association. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff's association. When the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property belonged to them, he is not competent to lease out the suit property in favour of Somasundaram. The plaintiff also failed to produce any document to show that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff's association and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.21 of 2013. The plaintiff also failed to produce any document to show that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff's association and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.21 of 2013. While pending the appeal suit, the respondent filed a petition to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. 10. It is curious to note that it is nothing but shortcut method, without setting aside the findings rendered as against the plaintiff, the respondent simply filed a petition for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. When this Court while allowing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners categorically held that the property assuming that it belonged to the respondent's society which is a public charitable property the Rent Control Act would not apply. Further, it was incumbent on the respondent to have established by un-impeachable evidence that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioners. When that being so, the respondent ought to have filed a suit on their title for recovery of possession. Without doing so, again the respondent on the Jural relationship of the petitioners and the respondent as landlord and tenant and filed the present suit. Though, the Court below had gone into the title of the suit property, when the suit was filed for ejectment, the findings rendered as against the respondent have to be set aside. Therefore, without setting aside the findings rendered as against the respondent, the respondent cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit, that too with liberty to file a fresh suit on the title. 11. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment reported in 2000 (III) CTC 558 (Bhoopathy K.S -vs- Kokila), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:- “13. The provision in Order 23, Rule 1, CPC is an exception to the common law principle of non-suit. Therefore on principle an application by a plaintiff under sub-rule (3) cannot be treated on a par with an application by him in exercise of the absolute liberty given to him under sub-rule (1). In the former it is actually a prayer for concession from the court after satisfying the court regarding existence of the circumstances justifying the grant of such concession. In the former it is actually a prayer for concession from the court after satisfying the court regarding existence of the circumstances justifying the grant of such concession. No doubt, the grant of leave envisaged in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 is at the discretion of the court but such discretion is to be exercised by the court with caution and circumspection. The legislative policy in the matter of exercise of discretion is clear from the provisions of sub-rule (3) in which two alternatives are provided; first where the court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, and the other where the court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim. Clause (b) of sub-rule (3) contains the mandate to the court that it must be satisfied about the sufficiency of the grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the same claim or part of the claim on the same cause of action. The court is to discharge the duty mandated under the provision of the Code on taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter including the desirability of permitting the party to start a fresh round of litigation on the same cause of action. This becomes all the more important in a case where the application under Order 23, Rule 1 is filed by the plaintiff at the stage of appeal. Grant of leave in such a case would result in the unsuccessful plaintiff to avoid the decree or decrees against him and seek a fresh adjudication of the controversy on a clean slate. It may also result in the contesting defendant losing the advantage of adjudication of the dispute by the court or courts below. Grant of permission for withdrawal of a suit with leave to file a fresh suit may also result in annulment of a right vested in the defendant or even a third party. The appellate/second appellate court should apply its mind to the case with a view to ensure strict compliance with the conditions prescribed in Order 23, Rule 1 (3), CPC for exercise of the discretionary power in permitting the withdrawal of the suit with leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The appellate/second appellate court should apply its mind to the case with a view to ensure strict compliance with the conditions prescribed in Order 23, Rule 1 (3), CPC for exercise of the discretionary power in permitting the withdrawal of the suit with leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Yet another reason in support of this view is that withdrawal of a suit at the appellate/second appellate stage results in wastage of public time of courts which is of considerable importance in the present time in view of large accumulation of cases in lower courts and inordinate delay in disposal of the cases. 17. From the above it appears that the approach of the High Court was that the plaintiff should have prayed for declaration of title which they had omitted to include in the plaint. It was for the plaintiffs to frame their suit in any form as advised. If they felt that there was a cause of action for declaration of their title to the suit property they could have made a prayer in that regard. If they felt that a declaration of their right to exclusive user of the pathway was necessary they should have framed the suit accordingly. On the other hand the plaintiffs merely sought a decree of injunction permanently restraining the defendants from disturbing their right of user of the property. From the facts and circumstances of the case as emanating from the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court it is clear that the plaintiffs realised the weakness in the claim of exclusive right of user over the property and in order to get over the findings against them by the first appellate court they took recourse to Order 23, Rule 1 (3) CPC and filed the application for withdrawal of the suit with leave to file a fresh suit. The High Court does not appear to have considered the relevant aspects of the matter. Its approach appears to have been that since the interest of the defendants can be safeguarded by giving them permission for user of the pathway till adjudication of the controversy in the fresh to be filed, permission for withdrawal of the suit as prayed for can be granted. Such an approach is clearly erroneous. Its approach appears to have been that since the interest of the defendants can be safeguarded by giving them permission for user of the pathway till adjudication of the controversy in the fresh to be filed, permission for withdrawal of the suit as prayed for can be granted. Such an approach is clearly erroneous. It is the duty of the court to feel satisfied that there exist proper grounds/reasons for granting permission for withdrawal of the suit with leave to file fresh suit by the plaintiffs and in such a matter the statutory mandate is not complied with by merely stating that grant of permission will not prejudice the defendants. In case such permission is granted at the appellate or second appellate stage prejudice to the defendant is writ large as he loses the benefit of the decision in his favour in the lower court.” 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the grant of permission for withdrawal of a suit with leave to file a fresh suit may also result in annulment of a right vested in the defendant or even a third party. The withdrawal of the suit at the appellate/second appellate stage results in wastage of public time of courts which is of considerable importance in the present time in view of large accumulation of cases in lower courts. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand and the Appellate Court ought not to have allowed the petition for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. 13. In view of the above, the order passed by the Court below is perverse and illegal, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.71 of 2014 in A.S.No.21 of 2013 dated 24.08.2015 is set aside. However, if the respondent succeeded in the appeal suit in respect of findings rendered in respect of the title over the property, he can very well file a fresh suit in the manner known to law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.