JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. 1. RFA No.77/2019 is filed by the plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.26482/2011 by the Court of XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-20), whereby dismissing the suit for ejectment against the defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff and for damages at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month, from the date of suit  till the date of surrender of vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. 2. RFA No.76/2019 is filed by the plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.26331/2009 by the Court of the XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-20), whereby dismissing the suit filed for ejectment against the defendant and for vacant possession of the suit premises and also damages at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of surrender of vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. It is the case made out by plaintiff that plaintiff is a temple having its office at No.115, Dharmaraja Koil Street, Bengaluru duly represented by its Yajaman Dharmakartha and Dharmakartha and owns immovable property being commercial premises bearing No.129, situated at Commercial Street, Bengaluru, and paying property taxes regularly to the BBMP. It is contended that defendant is the tenant under them in respect of ground floor and first floor portions of shop premises bearing No.129 situated at Commercial Street, Bengaluru. It is stated that there are rental agreements dated 16.02.2005 and 31.12.2003 on payment of rents at the rate of Rs.17,280/- per month and Rs.9,180/- per month respectively, excluding electricity charges and the said lease is for month to month as per the English calendar. 5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant took the suit schedule premises to carry out her own business personally thereon, but now she has sub-let the entire suit schedule premises to a third party tenant namely, 'FIDA Urban Ethnic Wear' and collecting huge rent from them. Thus, defendant has grossly violated the agreed terms and conditions of the rental agreement dated 16.02.2005. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy and thus filed suit for ejectment. Thus, defendant has grossly violated the agreed terms and conditions of the rental agreement dated 16.02.2005. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy and thus filed suit for ejectment. 6. In pursuance of suit summons, defendant appeared through her counsel and filed written statement by contending that the suit is not maintainable in law and Sri. Gadi R Parthasarathy and Sri. B G Padmanabhan who have filed the suit and purports to represent the plaintiff are not competent persons to file suit and also there is no validity in issuance of notice to terminate the tenancy and to file the present suit on behalf of plaintiff-temple. 7. It is further contended that the defendant has sublet the premises to other third party. It is also submitted that initially the tenancy is for a period of 10 years but, subsequently it was extended. Therefore, on all these pleadings, prays to dismiss the suits. 8. Upon pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues in both the cases: In OS.No.26482/2011: i. Whether plaintiff proves that it had validly terminated the tenancy of defendant? ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month? iii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief sought for? iv. What order or decree? In OS.No.26331/2009: i. Whether plaintiff proves tenancy of defendant is validly terminated? ii. Whether suit of the plaintiff is properly represented? iii. Whether plaintiff is entitle for damages of Rs.15,000/- per month? iv. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief sought for? v. What order or decree? 9. On behalf of plaintiff, one Trustee is examined as PW.1 and got marked 6 documents as per Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of defendant, power of Attorney holder of defendant is examined as DW.1 and got marked document as Ex.D1 and Ex.D1(a). 10. It is further contended that the Trial Court after perusing the material on record, dismissed both suits filed by the plaintiff on the ground that Yajaman Dharmakartha and Dharmakartha are not competent persons either to issue notice for termination of tenancy and also to institute suit. Further, Ex.P1 i.e., Board resolution does not authorize Yajaman Dharmakartha and Dharmakartha to issue legal notice as well as to institute suit. Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the suits by holding that there is no valid termination of tenancy and the suit is filed by non- competent persons. Further, Ex.P1 i.e., Board resolution does not authorize Yajaman Dharmakartha and Dharmakartha to issue legal notice as well as to institute suit. Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the suits by holding that there is no valid termination of tenancy and the suit is filed by non- competent persons. 11. Being aggrieved by both judgments and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred instant appeals by raising various grounds and learned counsel for the appellant argued in consonance with the grounds raised and submits that plaintiff is the owner and defendant is the tenant of suit schedule premises are not in dispute. Further, it is submitted that initially, the tenancy is for a period of 10 years and the same was not extended for the reason that defendant had sublet the suit schedule premises to the third party. Therefore, even by looking into the period of tenancy which is enunciated in the lease agreement, the defendant is liable to be evicted. 14. Further, it is submitted that plaintiff is duly represented by Yajaman Dharmakartha and Dharmakartha as they are authorized by 9 (nine) Directors. It is submitted that the Trial Court on too much hyper technical reasons has dismissed the suits and thereby prays to allow the appeals and decree the suits as prayed for. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant submitted that Yajaman Dharmakartha and Dharmakartha are not authorized by the plaintiff and there is no resolution by the Board authorizing them to issue notice of termination of tenancy and also to institute the suit. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is by unauthorized persons and they are not competent to institute suit. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly considered this aspect and dismissed the said suits and on all these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 16. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the points that arise for my consideration is as follows: i. Whether the plaintiff proves that Yajaman Dharmakartha and Dharmakartha are competent persons to initiate suit for ejectment after issuance of notice of termination of tenancy? ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgments and decree passed by the Trial Court requires no interference by this Court? 17. ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgments and decree passed by the Trial Court requires no interference by this Court? 17. In the present case, the plaintiff is stated to be temple and is the owner of the suit schedule premises and the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff are not in dispute. Further, the defendant in her letter at Ex.P4 had admitted that she is not owner of the suit premises of plaintiff consisting of ground and first floors vide agreement dated 01.10.1994 but admitted that she is under tenancy under the plaintiff vide agreement dated 16.02.2005 which is at Ex.P3. Therefore, even before the execution of the rent agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, there was already an agreement executed between the plaintiff and the father of defendant as admitted by her in Ex.P4-letter. Therefore, the defendant has admitted that she is the tenant over the suit schedule premises as per Ex.P4. 18. Ex.P1 is the Board resolution of the meeting held on 21.08.2005 which proves the fact that Sri. B.G. Padmanabhan was nominated as Dharmakartha as per letter received by Yajman Dharmakartha Sri. Gadi R Parthasarathy which is signed by twelve members of Byadarapally family. Therefore, there is no dispute that Yajaman Dharmakartha and Dharmakartha are managing the affairs of temple as they are nominated by the 9 (nine) trustees. Therefore, the suit instituted by the plaintiff is proved to be by the competent persons. 19. Ex.P5 is the legal notice dated 26.03.2011 intimating the defendant with regard to termination of tenancy in respect of the suit schedule premises and this proves the fact that there is gross violation of tenancy. 20. Ex.P6 is the reply dated 11.04.2011 given by the defendant which is in consonance with letter at Ex.P4. Therefore, the defendant is found to be approbate and reprobate. When this being the scenario, it is proved that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule premises and defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff over the suit schedule premises. Further, it is proved that the suit is instituted by the competent persons and also there is violation of termination of tenancy by the defendant. Hence, the Trial Court is not correct in dismissing the suits and the judgments and decree passed is illegal and perverse and on too much hyper technical approach, it has dismissed the said suits. Further, it is proved that the suit is instituted by the competent persons and also there is violation of termination of tenancy by the defendant. Hence, the Trial Court is not correct in dismissing the suits and the judgments and decree passed is illegal and perverse and on too much hyper technical approach, it has dismissed the said suits. As such, the said judgments and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeals. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. RFA No. 77/2019 and RFA No.76/2019 are allowed ii. The judgment and decree dated 28.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.26482/2011 by the Court of XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH- 20), is set aside. iii. The judgment and decree 28.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.26331/2009 by the Court of the XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-20), is set aside. iv. Suits filed by the plaintiff are decreed in full. v. The defendant in both cases shall vacate the suit schedule premises within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.