JUDGMENT : M.G. UMA, J. The appellant in these appeals being defendant No.1 in OS.Nos.7776/1998, 7775/1998 and 7777/1998 on the file of the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as to 'the Trial Court' for short), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession and for arrears of rent and directing defendant No.1 to vacate the premises and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff within four months from the date of judgment and also to pay the arrears of rent and continue to pay the periodical rent. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed the suit OS.No.7776/1998 before the Trial Court against the defendants seeking vacant possession of Schedule-B property and for arrears of rent and other dues i.e., a sum of Rs.58,772/- with interest at 18% per annum till realisation and also to pay periodical rent during the pendency of suit. Schedule-B attached to the plaint describes 1,870 sq.feet of office space identified as No.6-C on the 6 th floor of the multi storied building, Chitrapurbavan situated at No.68 (old No.742), 8 th Main Road, Malleshwaram (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property'). Schedule-A attached to the plaint describes the entire piece and parcel of their land, bearing Corporation No.68 (old No.742) situated at 15 th cross of which Schedule-B property is a portion. 4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that it is a Charitable Institution as defined under Hindu Charitable and Endowments Act. It is a Public Religious Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, having its Central Office at Shiralikkanara, Uttar Kannada District and it also has a branch at Bengaluru. The plaint is signed by the authorized signatory. 5. It is stated that the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act is not applicable to the premises as the plaintiff is a Charitable Trust. Defendant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under Company Act, 1956, of which, Smt.Shobana Rao is the Managing Director and is representing the Company. 6. The plaintiff contended that it is the absolute owner in possession of Schedule-A property. Defendant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under Company Act, 1956, of which, Smt.Shobana Rao is the Managing Director and is representing the Company. 6. The plaintiff contended that it is the absolute owner in possession of Schedule-A property. During 1980, the plaintiff formed a scheme for construction of commercial complex in the portion of property, comprising of office premises and parking space. Accordingly, the construction was completed on Schedule-A. 7. Defendant was intending to open an office at Bengaluru and approached the plaintiff for providing the office space. The plaintiff agreed for the same. A lease deed dated 19.03.1991 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant creating a lease for a period of 45 years in respect of Schedule-B property. As per the terms of lease, defendant was to pay an advance amount of Rs.4,57,500/- at the rate of Rs.250/- per Sq.ft, being interest free advance, which is not refundable on expiry of the lease period. Defendant agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.1.20/- per Sq.ft, totaling to Rs.2,244/- per annum. Defendant agreed to pay the same, quarterly in advance amounting to Rs.561/- per quarter. There was an agreement to increase the rate of rent by 10% once in five years. If the defendant commits default in payment of rent for over six months, the plaintiff is entitled to re-enter the premises and the defendant was duty bound to hand over the possession of the premises. 8. It is contented by the plaintiff that as per clause 4 of part-B of the lease deed, the defendant was also liable to pay maintenance and service charges for every month as computed in respect of the leased premises. The failure on the part of the defendant to pay such charges within the end of calendar month would attract penal interest at 15% per annum and he is also liable for eviction. 9. It is contented that the defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and maintenance charges right from the beginning. As on 31.08.1998, the defendant was in arrears of a sum of Rs.58,772/-. The plaintiff made repeated requests to pay the arrears and to pay the rent regularly. The defendant vide its letters dated 31.12.1997 - Ex.P10 and 09.01.1998 - Ex.P12 while admitting that there are arrears of rent and other dues, promised to pay all the arrears in monthly instalments of Rs.20,000/- each. The plaintiff made repeated requests to pay the arrears and to pay the rent regularly. The defendant vide its letters dated 31.12.1997 - Ex.P10 and 09.01.1998 - Ex.P12 while admitting that there are arrears of rent and other dues, promised to pay all the arrears in monthly instalments of Rs.20,000/- each. But the defendant has not made any payment pursuant to the promise made. 10. The plaintiff contended that the defendant started showing hostile attitude without paying the arrears, and therefore, the plaintiff got issued the legal notice dated 10.06.1998 - Ex.P17, terminating the lease, demanding the arrears of rent, and seeking delivery of vacant possession of Schedule-B property. The said notice was served on the defendant on 12.06.1998. The defendant has neither replied nor complied with the demands made therein. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession, arrears of rent and other dues. During pendency of this suit, M/s Orchidsoft India Private Limited is impleaded as defendant No.2. 11. Defendant No.1 appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement admitting that it has entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff under the lease deed dated 19.03.1991 in respect of Schedule-B property for a period of 45 years. The rate of rent and other terms as stated by the plaintiff is also admitted. It is contented that as per the terms of lease deed, which was for a period from 12.10.1988 to 11.10.2033, the lessee was given an option for extension of period for another 45 years, subject to the terms and conditions mutually agreeable within one year prior to expiry of the lease, subject to executing a fresh lease deed. Defendant admitted that, in case of failure to pay the rent along with interest as agreed, the lesser is entitled to terminate the lease and exercise the right of re-entry. It is contented that the defendant has paid rent of Rs.16,572/- as part payment through cheque dated 25.05.1996 and the same is acknowledged by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contented that the averments made in the plaint that the defendant has not made any payment towards rent is denied. 12. It is contented that one Shri. J.S. Rao, the Managing Director of defendant - Company was associated with the Mutt since 1979 in both housing and commercial complex of Chitrapur Mutt. Therefore, it is contented that the averments made in the plaint that the defendant has not made any payment towards rent is denied. 12. It is contented that one Shri. J.S. Rao, the Managing Director of defendant - Company was associated with the Mutt since 1979 in both housing and commercial complex of Chitrapur Mutt. He was the retired Commissioner of Income Tax Department and he was the brain behind various projects undertaken by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contented that the defendant - Company is not only a lessee, but also part of the plaintiff's Mutt. 13. The defendant admitted that as per clause 4 of part-B of the lease agreement, he is liable to discharge all cesses, taxes, outgoings such as electrical, water and sanitation charges, expenses of routine maintenance including painting, whitewashing, lift, lighting and other items of common services, or repairs or renewals of proportional taxes or any other taxes, that may be levied from the Government or local authority, and contented that the defendant is maintaining the schedule property and paying all the dues promptly, as per the lease agreement. 14. The defendant admitted that, he is liable to pay the maintenance of the complex as regards to common utility services. However, he contends that there are in all 30 lessees of which, the defendant is occupying only one portion. Therefore, the monthly maintenance amount will have to be shared by all the 30 lessees. It shall be calculated on actual expenditure incurred. The plaintiff has to give the account as to the actual expenditure incurred towards maintenance. He has not given accounts with regard to the same. Under such circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is due to a sum of Rs.1,06,671/- is denied. As regards arrears of maintenance as contented by the plaintiff, it is contented that the defendant is maintaining his portion of the premises by paying all charges. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff towards arrears of maintenance is totally arbitrary and baseless. 15. The defendant has denied the authority of the Vice-President of the Standing Committee to file and maintain the suit. The defendant contended that, he is liable to pay rent of Rs.443/- per quarter which is less than Rs.500/- and therefore, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 15. The defendant has denied the authority of the Vice-President of the Standing Committee to file and maintain the suit. The defendant contended that, he is liable to pay rent of Rs.443/- per quarter which is less than Rs.500/- and therefore, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is also contented that the statutory notice as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was not issued. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 16. Defendant No.2 also filed a written statement contending that the suit against it is not maintainable, as no relief is claimed against it. Pursuant to an advertisement in an English daily newspaper, defendant No.2 had approached defendant No.1 seeking tenancy in respect of Schedule-B property. A lease deed dated 05.02.2004 was executed and defendant No.2 paid the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as refundable interest free deposit and agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.15 per Sq.ft., The lease period was for 33 months. Defendant No.2 paid the rent to defendant No.1 promptly. It is also contented that after the lease period, defendant No.2 vacated and handed over the possession of the lease schedule property to defendant No.1 on 31.10.2006. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit against it. 17. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: "1) Whether Sri. N Muralidhar is competent to file this suit on behalf of Shri.Chitrapur Math, Bangalore? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants breached the terms of lease agreement? 3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in arrears of rent and other dues amounting to Rs.528,772/- as on the date of the suit? 4) Whether the plaintiff proves that it terminated that tenancy of the defence in accordance with law? 5) Whether the suit is barred under Section 21 of Rent Control Act? 6) What decree or order?" 18. The plaintiff examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 19 in support of its his contention. Defendants examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to 95 in support of their defence. 5) Whether the suit is barred under Section 21 of Rent Control Act? 6) What decree or order?" 18. The plaintiff examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 19 in support of its his contention. Defendants examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to 95 in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for, directing defendant No.1 to vacate Schedule-B premises and handover the vacant premises to the plaintiff within four months from the date of judgment and also to pay arrears of rent upto date, while dismissing the suit against defendant No.2. 19. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has preferred RFA.No.1013/2010. 20. The plaintiff has filed similar suits in OS.Nos.7775/1998 and 7777/1998 in respect of two other premises which are described in Schedule-B, referring to the lease deed with similar terms and seeking vacant possession and arrears of rent from the defendant. 21. The defendant has appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statements taking similar defence. The Trial Court framed similar issues and after referring to the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, proceeded to pass the impugned judgments, which are challenged in RFA.Nos.1004/2010 and 1014/2010. 22. Since the contentions of parties in all these suits and the appeals are one and the same and the parties are also common, all the three appeals are taken up for common discussion. 23. Heard Sri. Sridhar Prabhu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 24. Learned advocate on record for the appellant even though present before the Court has not addressed his arguments inspite of granting sufficient opportunity. However, finally he requested the Court to proceed with the matter with liberty to file written submissions. Accordingly, written arguments of the appellant with list of authorities is filed. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant filed the written submission admitting execution of three lease deeds in respect of the premises which are the subject matter of three suits before the Trial Court. By re-iterating the terms of lease agreement, he contended that the claim of the plaintiff regarding arrears of rent and maintenance is baseless. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant filed the written submission admitting execution of three lease deeds in respect of the premises which are the subject matter of three suits before the Trial Court. By re-iterating the terms of lease agreement, he contended that the claim of the plaintiff regarding arrears of rent and maintenance is baseless. It is contended that when the arrears of maintenance are not calculated or apportioned by the plaintiff, he was not entitled for any such relief. 26. Learned advocate has highlighted the amount that was due towards rent and contended that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.2,66,906/- where the amount payable towards rent was only Rs.46,220/-. Therefore, it is contended that since the defendant has paid the excess amount towards rent, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. It is re-iterated that the plaintiff without computation of amount towards maintenance could not have claimed the same from the defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has levied the maintenance charges arbitrarily and thus he is not entitled for the same. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not formed an 'association of lessees' to claim maintenance which disentitles him from claiming any amount towards the same. 27. Learned advocate contended that as per the calculation made in the written arguments, no amount is due towards rent and the plaintiff has not claimed the maintenance on any specific grounds. He refers to various clauses in the documents that are exhibited on his behalf to deny the claim of the plaintiff. It is contended that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have not taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a proper perspective and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion. Hence, prays for allowing the appeals in the interest of justice. 28. Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff opposing the appeals contended that the three premises described in the plaint before the Trial Court were leased in favour of the defendant, subject to the terms of lease deed. Defendant in categorical terms admitted the ownership and jural relationship between plaintiff and itself. The defendant has also admitted that there are arrears of rent and issuance of notice for termination of tenancy. Defendant in categorical terms admitted the ownership and jural relationship between plaintiff and itself. The defendant has also admitted that there are arrears of rent and issuance of notice for termination of tenancy. The contention of the defendant that he has maintained his portion of the premises and not liable to pay the maintenance charges cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, he himself admits that he is liable to contribute the maintenance of common area and common amenities enjoyed by him. 29. Learned counsel further contended that the lease deed dated 19.03.1991 is an admitted document and it is marked as Ex.P18. This lease deed is signed by Sri.Muralidhar the Vice -President of the Standing Committee. When said Sri.Muralidhar in his capacity as Vice-President of Standing Committee signed the lease deed Ex.P18, the defendant could not have questioned his authority to sign the plaint. The other defence taken by the defendant are baseless and they are against the terms of lease deed, which is an admitted document. 30. Learned counsel also contended that the defendant had written various letters addressed to Sri.Muralidhar, either seeking indulgence by granting time for payment of arrears of rent and also seeking permission to sublet the premises. Under such circumstances, the defendant could not have disputed his authority. 31. Learned counsel further contended that when defendant categorically admitted that, there are arrears of rent and maintenance charges and he defaulted in complying with the terms of lease deed, he is liable for eviction. He further contended that even though defendant No.2 is impleaded contending that defendant No.1 has sublet the premises in its favour, the Trial Court formed an opinion that such subletting was after the termination of lease and the said finding is not challenged by the plaintiff. 32. Learned counsel further contended that Ex.P11 is the letter which proves that the cheque referred to by defendant No.1 in the written statement was dishonored. Ex.P15 is the letter written by defendant No.1 admitting the arrears of rent, various other letters i.e., Exs.P10 to 12, 14 to 16 were also written by him and none of these documents are disputed. Exs.P7 and 8 are the statement of bills. Ex.P9 is the ledger extract. Ex.P17 is the notice addressed to defendant No.1. When the defendant categorically admits violation of the terms of lease deed, he cannot be permitted to squat over the property. Exs.P7 and 8 are the statement of bills. Ex.P9 is the ledger extract. Ex.P17 is the notice addressed to defendant No.1. When the defendant categorically admits violation of the terms of lease deed, he cannot be permitted to squat over the property. The Trial Court after appreciation of the materials on record, arrived at a right conclusion. Therefore, there are no grounds to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeals. 33. In light of the rival contentions taken by both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?" My answer to the above point in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 34. The plaintiff had filed three suits i.e., OS.Nos.7775/1998, 7776/1998 and 7777/1998 against the defendant for possession and for arrears of rent. The defendant filed the written statement admitting the relationship between the parties. It is also admitted that he has entered into a lease deed dated 19.03.1991 in respect of the scheduled property for a period of 45 years, agreeing to pay the rent and maintenance charges. He also admits that on his failure to pay the rent, he was liable to pay interest. 35. The defendant has denied the authority of Vice-President who signed the plaint and filed the suit. Interestingly, the defendant has issued several letters addressed to the very same Vice-President. Exs.P10 to 16 are various letters produced by the plaintiff which were written by the defendant. When the defendant admits that he was tenant under the plaintiff who executed the lease deed as per Ex.P18, which was signed by N Muralidhar, who was none other than the Vice-President of the Mutt, who signed the plaint representing the Mutt, the defendant could not have taken a defence denying the authority of the very same N Muralidhar to represent the Mutt while filing the suit. This shows again the conduct of defendant in taking untenable defence only with an intention to deny the rightful claim of the plaintiff and to squat over the property indefinitely. 36. The plaintiff examined PW.1 as its witness. He was cross-examined at length on four different dates of hearing. But nothing has been elicited from the witness. This shows again the conduct of defendant in taking untenable defence only with an intention to deny the rightful claim of the plaintiff and to squat over the property indefinitely. 36. The plaintiff examined PW.1 as its witness. He was cross-examined at length on four different dates of hearing. But nothing has been elicited from the witness. On the other hand, it is suggested to the witness that, N Muralidhar, who signed the plaint and represented the Mutt was in-charge of the administration of Bengaluru Mutt. This suggestion was admitted by PW.1. It is also suggested to PW.1 that Ex.P1 - Power of Attorney was executed by the Mutt in favour of PW.1, and the said N Muralidhar, who represented the Mutt. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant is inconsistent in taking his defence, as in the written statement he denies the authority of N Muralidhar to represent the Mutt. But while cross-examining PW.1, he categorically admits his authority. The letters Exs.P10 to 16 written by defendant to the plaintiff discloses that, he is not in fact disputing the authority of N Muralidhar, who signed the plaint. The question arises as to why the defendant is taking such inconsistent plea. It is obviously with an intention to drag on the matter and to hoodwink the Court. 37. Ex.P1 is the Special Power of Attorney executed the Matadhipathi of the Mutt in favour of in favour of N.Muralidhar, the Vice-President and PW.1 - Suresh K Savanal to represent the Mutt in the suits that were filed before the Trial Court by examining himself as PW.1. 38. A strange contention was taken in the written statement that the Managing Director of the defendant Company was associated with him since 1979 and he was the brain behind various projects and hence the defendant was not a lessee, but he was part of plaintiff’s Mutt. When defendant categorically admits execution of the lease deed dated 19.03.1991 in respect of the schedule property by agreeing to pay the rent and the maintenance charges, this contention taken by the defendant cannot be accepted even for a moment. That shows the conduct of the defendant in disowning its liability to pay the rent as well as the maintenance charges. Such contention taken by the defendant assumes importance in the light of the contention taken by the plaintiff that the defendant was in arrears of rent. That shows the conduct of the defendant in disowning its liability to pay the rent as well as the maintenance charges. Such contention taken by the defendant assumes importance in the light of the contention taken by the plaintiff that the defendant was in arrears of rent. It is pertinent to note that the defendant in the written statement while categorically admitting the lease deed even refers to Clause 'B' (4) where he was liable to discharge various payments including the routine maintenance charges towards painting, white washing, lift, lighting and towards common service etc,. 39. Even though, it is contented by the defendant that he was not in arrears of either rent or maintenance, it is his specific contention that he is maintaining the schedule property which is in his actual possession. It is not the contention of the defendant he has paid the maintenance towards common area including the lift and electricity charges. But on the other hand, it is his contention that the plaintiff should have given an account of actual expenditure by producing the documents and dividing the total expenses incurred by 30 lessees, and then only the defendant was liable to pay the amount. Unfortunately, that was not the term of lease deed agreed between the parties. On the other hand, the defendant categorically undertook to pay the maintenance charges as demanded by the plaintiff. 40. Interestingly, the defendant has never raised any dispute calling upon the plaintiff to give account of the maintenance charges demanded by him. On the other hand, he kept quiet without paying the maintenance charges, which shows the conduct of the defendant only to deny legal right of the plaintiff, who is required to maintain the common area by paying electricity, water charges, maintenance of lift, white wash and keep the premises in a habitable condition. Such claim made by the plaintiff cannot be termed as either illegal or baseless, when the defendant has never raised any dispute by issuing notice to the plaintiff, calling upon him to explain the basis for such claim of maintenance. When the defendant agreed to pay the maintenance charges as per the terms of lease deed, he is estopped from taking up untenable defence in the written statement. 41. It is pertinent to note that Exs.P7 and 8 are the bills sent by the plaintiff. Ex.P9 is the ledger extract. When the defendant agreed to pay the maintenance charges as per the terms of lease deed, he is estopped from taking up untenable defence in the written statement. 41. It is pertinent to note that Exs.P7 and 8 are the bills sent by the plaintiff. Ex.P9 is the ledger extract. None of these documents were disputed by the defendant regarding the outstanding dues of Rs.58,772/- that was payable by the defendant till the end of December, 1998. 42. A strange defence was taken by the defendant that he is maintaining his portion of the building i.e., the schedule premises and therefore, he is not liable to pay any other amount. This contention is against the terms of lease deed - Ex.P18. Moreover, admittedly, the legal notice as per Ex.P17 was issued to the defendant, but there is no reply to the same. 43. It is pertinent to note that the defendant examined one J.S Rao as DW.1 and filed the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief which runs into 31 pages. Many irrelevant facts are deposed in this affidavit which has no basis whatsoever. The contentions which were never taken by the defendant in the written statement were stated in the affidavit, which cannot be taken into consideration for any reason. 44. During cross-examination of DW.1, he states that he had paid the maintenance charges under protest, as the details of maintenance charges were not provided by the plaintiff. But he had not called upon the plaintiff to furnish such details, and he has also not produced any material to show that he has paid the maintenance charges under protest or that, he has raised objection in that regard with the plaintiff. When DW.1 was further cross-examined about the letters, he is said to have written to the plaintiff by raising objections. He categorically stated that "I am not finding any letters written by me objecting the plaintiff's claim". This again shows the conduct of the defendant in raising baseless and false defenses. The witness further categorically admits that, he had not paid the amount as claimed by the plaintiff. Witness pleads his ignorance as to what was the amount that was paid by him towards maintenance. Even though he states that such payments were referred to in his various letters, he failed to identify any of the letters that are produced before the Court. Witness pleads his ignorance as to what was the amount that was paid by him towards maintenance. Even though he states that such payments were referred to in his various letters, he failed to identify any of the letters that are produced before the Court. The cross-examination of this witness discloses that even though he claims payment of the rent and the maintenance upto date, the witness was unable to lay his hands on any of the documents produced by him to substantiate his contention. 45. It is pertinent to note that the defendant has taken a contention that he had issued few cheques to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent and maintenance. During cross- examination, he categorically admits that two such cheques issued by him were subsequently withdrawn. He admits the letter Exs.P10 and 12 written by him to the plaintiff. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that even after Ex.P10, the defendant has not paid any amount. Even though, such suggestion is denied by DW.1, no materials are placed before the Court to substantiate his contention regarding payment of the arrears of rent and maintenance. 46. The plaintiff produced Ex.P9 copy of the ledger extract to show the arrears of maintenance charges that is due from the defendant. They also produced Exs.P7 and 8 to substantiate their contention regarding the arrears of maintenance from the defendant. These documents were never disputed by the defendants while cross examining PW.1. Ex.P10 is the letter addressed by the defendant to the Chairman of the plaintiff's Mutt. There is reference to the letter written by N Muralidhar and also the telephonic discussions held by the defendant with the said N Muralidhar, who is none other than the person who signed the plaint. As per letter dated 31.12.1997 the defendant offering to pay monthly instalment of Rs.10,000/- for January, 1998, Rs.20,000/- for February, 1998 and so on and requesting the plaintiff Mutt to treat cheque No.217157 dated 15.07.1987 for Rs.19,235/- as cancelled and to return back the same. Ex.P12 is again the letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding payment due to the plaintiff towards maintenance charges, where the defendant has offered to pay Rs.20,000/- by 17.01.1998 towards the outstanding dues against return of the cheque referred to above and undertaking to pay every month Rs.20,000/- towards the arrears. Ex.P12 is again the letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding payment due to the plaintiff towards maintenance charges, where the defendant has offered to pay Rs.20,000/- by 17.01.1998 towards the outstanding dues against return of the cheque referred to above and undertaking to pay every month Rs.20,000/- towards the arrears. There is again a request to cancel the two post-dated cheques issued in favour of the plaintiff, with a request not to present the same for encashment, as there is no sufficient funds in the Bank to honour the cheque. 47. It is contented that the defendant had issued a cheque for Rs.16,572/- dated 25.05.1996. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the cheque was dishonored and returned. Ex.P11 is the document produced by the plaintiff to evidence that the cheque issued by the defendant towards payment of arrears of rent was not honored. It is not the contention of the defendant that even thereafter, he paid the amount towards arrears of rent. 48. Ex.P11 is the letter dated 02.01.1998 address to the Mutt, regarding the payment that is due to the plaintiff, requesting for grant of some more time to make payment of Rs.19,235/- covered under the cheque referred to above, again promising to pay the amount in instalments and informing that they are making efforts to raise funds from financial institutions. Ex.P13 is the letter addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 04.01.1994 informing it that legal notice was issued on 05.05.1993 asking to pay the arrears of rent and maintenance charges and also stating that only Rs.16,703/- was paid by the defendant. There is reference to several assurances given by the defendant and highlighting that an amount of Rs.60,194.90/- was due i.e., Rs.9,147.54/- towards the arrears of rent and Rs.51,047.36/- towards maintenance charges. Ex.P14 is one more notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 25.01.1997, again there is reference to arrears of rent and maintenance charges as agreed under the lease deed and asking the defendant to quit and vacate the schedule premises on his failure to pay the rent as well as the arrears of maintenance. Ex.P15 is the reply given by the defendant to the plaintiff dated 13.06.1997 again assuring to settle all the outstanding arrears and also referring to issuance of post-dated cheques to settle all dues and requesting to withdraw the quit notice. Ex.P15 is the reply given by the defendant to the plaintiff dated 13.06.1997 again assuring to settle all the outstanding arrears and also referring to issuance of post-dated cheques to settle all dues and requesting to withdraw the quit notice. Ex.P17 is the notice to quit dated 10.06.1998 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Again referring to pay arrears of rent and maintenance and asking the defendant to vacate the premises by terminating his tenancy. 49. Ex.P18 is the copy of lease deed dated 19.03.1991 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. Interestingly, the plaintiff's Mutt was represented by one Sri. M Umanath Rao, Chairman of Sub-Committee of Standing Committee and the very same N. Muralidhar, the member of Sub-Committee of the Standing committee, who is signatory to the plaint. This document is an admitted document and the defendant is bound by the terms of lease deed. As per Clause- 4 of the lease deed, the defendant has agreed to pay and discharge all the cesses, taxes, outgoings such as electrical, water and sanitation charges, expenses of routine maintenance including painting, white washing, lift, lighting and other items of common services, repairs, renewals, professional taxes or any of other taxes that may be levied resulting from the use of the premises. Defendant has agreed to pay maintenance and service charges etc., promptly on the due date that is before the end of the calendar month and agreed to pay penal interest at 15% per annum on the amount that was kept due. 50. When defendant in unequivocal terms agreed to pay the maintenance apart from the rent, he cannot be permitted to raise untenable defence, that too, when under various letters referred to above, he unconditionally undertook to pay such arrears. The letters also disclose that the defendant had issued cheques towards payment of the arrears of rent and maintenance, but later requested not to present the same for encashment and had requested to return the same. 51. Even though, the defendants examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to 95, learned counsel for the appellant has not drawn the attention of the Court to any of these documents in support of his contention, highlighting as to why those documents were relied on by the defendants. 52. 51. Even though, the defendants examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 to 95, learned counsel for the appellant has not drawn the attention of the Court to any of these documents in support of his contention, highlighting as to why those documents were relied on by the defendants. 52. Even though, learned counsel to the appellant has never addressed his arguments and sought for permission to file his written submission and has filed a detailed submission running into several pages, a strange contention is taken by the appellants that the appellants have already paid the amount in excess of the amount stipulated in the lease dead to the plaintiff and contended that there is no basis for the plaintiff to claim the maintenance charges on the ground that lease deed Ex.P18 do not contain any such provision for computation of the maintenance. 53. I have referred to various letters written by the defendant addressed to the plaintiff promising to pay the amount that was due, including the maintenance charges and issuance of cheques, and withdrawing the same as there was no balance in the bank account. But the defendant has never raised a contention that the plaintiff has to compute the maintenance charges that is payable by the defendant in a particular manner. It is only when the suit is filed, such contention was taken by the defendant, which cannot be entertained. If at all, it was the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is levying maintenance charges arbitrarily, it could have been mentioned in any of the correspondences referred to above. There is no explanation by the defendant as to why for such a long period he has not demanded the plaintiff to give accounts of such maintenance charges in any of the correspondences, but he requested the plaintiff to accommodate to pay the maintenance charges in instalments. 54. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff deliberately failed to form an association and unilaterally levied the maintenance charges without providing any basis. Even though, PW.1 was cross-examined in that regard, he categorically stated that it was the duty of the lessees to form an association which they have not made. On the other hand, the maintenance charges for the common area was borne by the plaintiff. 55. Even though, PW.1 was cross-examined in that regard, he categorically stated that it was the duty of the lessees to form an association which they have not made. On the other hand, the maintenance charges for the common area was borne by the plaintiff. 55. Admittedly, there were common areas referred to in Clause-4 of the lease deed - Ex.P18 for which the defendant agreed to pay the maintenance charges as referred to above. The lease deed does not mandate the plaintiff to form an association or to provide account of the maintenance charges to the defendant, even otherwise the defendant never demanded the plaintiff either to form such an association or to provide the accounts. Under such circumstances, the contention raised by the defendant in the written submission cannot be accepted. The defence taken by the defendant in the written submission is not supported either by oral or documentary evidence. 56. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision in Charanjit Singh Vs Kehar Singh, 2006 SCC Online Del 578 to contend that the admissions will have to be unambiguous, clear and unconditional. The admission of facts is to be very clear from records. It cannot be left to the interpretative determination by the Court, unless it is supported by any evidence. This position of law is very well settled and the same cannot be disputed. 57. He also referred to the decision in Chandradhar Goswami and others Vs Gauhati Bank Ltd., 1966 SCC Online SC 255 to contend that no person can be charged with liability merely on the basis of entries in books of account, even where such books of account are kept in the regular course of business. The facts and circumstances in the said case are entirely different when compared to the facts of the present case. Here the terms of agreement between the parties are reduced into writing in the form of lease agreement. Execution of lease agreement is admitted by the defendant. He has also admitted that he is liable to pay maintenance to the plaintiff. Even though, the defendant has taken a contention that such maintenance was not quantified or apportioned between other lessees or that the plaintiff has not formed the 'association of lessees' to enable them to maintain common area, there are no such terms in the lease agreement agreed between the parties. Even though, the defendant has taken a contention that such maintenance was not quantified or apportioned between other lessees or that the plaintiff has not formed the 'association of lessees' to enable them to maintain common area, there are no such terms in the lease agreement agreed between the parties. The discussions held above disclose that the defendant has not raised his little finger requesting the plaintiff to give him the accounts regarding maintenance. Under such circumstances, the decision relied on cannot be made applicable to the facts in the present case. 58. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. Vs Bishun Narain Inter College and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 555 to contend that once it is found that inspite of deficiency in pleadings and the parties knew the case and proceed to trial on those issues by producing evidence, it would not be open to the parties to raise the question of absence of pleadings in the appeal. The pleadings of the parties before the Trial Court are entirely different from the grounds that are urged by the parties in the appeal. When the defendant has never raised the plea before the Trial Court, cannot be permitted to be raise before this Court in the second appeal. 59. He also placed reliance on Smt Sumitra Bai Vs P Siddesh and another, ILR 2014 KAR 1311 in support of his contention that weakness of the defendant's case would not strengthen the  plaintiff's case. The plaintiff will have to prove his contention by placing cogent materials. This position is also not disputed as the same is well settled. 60. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the defendant was in arrears of rent and also in arrears of maintenance that was payable to the plaintiff, and moreover his tenancy was terminated by issuing a valid notice to quit. Therefore, he is liable to be evicted. When admittedly the defendant is in arrears of rent and maintenance charges, he has no right to be in possession of the schedule property. 61. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the materials on record and has arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 61. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the materials on record and has arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, I answer to the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed with cost. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment.