JUDGMENT : S.Srimathy, J. This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in the suit to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03.11.2014 passed in A.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2010 passed in O.S.No.940 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai. 2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein and the defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per the ranking in the suit. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.940 of 1999 inter alia praying for direction to the defendant to deliver the possession of the suit property within a stipulated time and to pay damages for all these years. The brief facts are that the plaintiff is a Public Religious and Charitable Institution functioning in the name and style of Jesult Madurai Province having its head office at Dindigul and also having properties in an around Madurai. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff's institution and the same was rented to the defendant for running a hospital namely Basky Trust Hospitals from 01.06.1998 for the monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- on or before 2 nd day of succeeding English Calendar month and paid advance of Rs.50,000/- which is refundable at the time of vacating the premises. Periodically the rent was increased and at the time of filing the suit, the rent was Rs.21,600/-. The plaintiff is not a private institution but public institution relating to charitable works and the beneficiaries in numerous on numbers. The plaintiff is in need of the suit property to the welfare of the students who are studying in People College, Madurai and now temporarily functioning in I.T.I. Campus. Though the defendant has promised to vacate the suit property has failed to do the same. Hence, the plaintiff has issued a notice dated 15.07.1999 to the defendant demanding to vacate the suit property and surrender the same on or before 01.08.1999. After receiving the said legal notice, the defendant has issued a reply notice, dated 31.07.1999 stating that the plaintiff is not a public institution and is not protected under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and also raised various other false allegations. After receiving the said legal notice, the defendant has issued a reply notice, dated 31.07.1999 stating that the plaintiff is not a public institution and is not protected under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and also raised various other false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff had filed the suit to deliver the possession of the suit property and damages. 4. The defendant has filed written statement stating that as on date the monthly rent is Rs.21,600/- and he is paying monthly rent regularly without fail. The plaintiff is not a public trust or any institution much as a religious trust. The suit for eviction of the tenant is not maintainable and the defendant is entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 , the Rent Control Court is having jurisdiction and not the Civil Court, the jurisdiction issue ought to be decided as preliminary. The other allegations are denied as false. The plaintiff's society has sold various properties and the plaintiff has intended to sell the present property for higher price. There is no bonafide intention in the eviction proceedings and the plea of own use is false. The defendant is a charitable institution granting medical assistant for deaf and dumb, and exempted from any tax. At the time of lease the building was in dilapidated condition, the defendant had repaired at his own cost, put up bridge and pathway, modified the building and also extensively done various repair works to the tune of Rs.88,000/-. Then every two years had carried on white washing at the cost of Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiff and the defendant had agreed for a long term lease and based on the promise, the defendant had constructed huge hospital building. Hence the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. The Trial Court after considering the rival pleadings and framed the following issues: 6. The plaintiff has marked Ex.A.1 to A.10 and examined P.W.1 and P.W.2. The defendant has marked Ex.B.1 to B.3 and examined D.W.1 & D.W.2. Based on the rival pleadings and documents produced by both the parties, the Trial Court has allowed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate the premises within a period of 3 months. The plaintiff has marked Ex.A.1 to A.10 and examined P.W.1 and P.W.2. The defendant has marked Ex.B.1 to B.3 and examined D.W.1 & D.W.2. Based on the rival pleadings and documents produced by both the parties, the Trial Court has allowed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate the premises within a period of 3 months. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has preferred the Appeal Suit in A.S No.14 of 2010, wherein the Appellate Court has framed the following points for consideration: And an additional point for consideration was framed, whether the 15 days notice is valid as per the agreement dated 25.05.1998? 7. The Appellate Court had answered all the questions in favour of the plaintiff and accept the point Nos. 3, 5 & 6. Against which, the second appeal is filed. At the time of admission, the second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the lower Appellate Court is wrong in rejecting the evidence of P.W.1 on the ground that he was not authorised by the Appellant society herein/plaintiff? 8. The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit was filed by the Jesult Madurai Province, Dindigul, represented through its Province, who is the authorised person to file the suit and in fact he had filed the suit and the P.W.1 was examined as witness before the Court and he was authorised to conduct the suit proceedings. Per contra, the Learned counsel appearing for the defendant vehemently objected and stated that he was directed only to look after the case and he was not directed to depose before the Court below and therefore, the documents marked by the plaintiff and deposition of the P.W.1 cannot be accepted, but considering this plea the Appellate Court has considered the said issue and held that the suit cannot be prosecuted by P.W.1. But, the Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the suit was filed by the Province only. Since the plaintiff itself is an institution either the Province has to depose before the Court or he has to authorise any person to depose and mark the document. 9. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit is filed only by the Province and he had authority to file the suit and rightly the plaintiff had filed the suit. 9. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit is filed only by the Province and he had authority to file the suit and rightly the plaintiff had filed the suit. As far as P.W.1 deposition is concerned, the plaintiff is having every right to make any person to be examined as witness and mark documents. For the argument sake, if it is considered that the PW. 1 cannot be considered as deposed on behalf of the Province, at least he can be considered as witness. Therefore, this Court is convinced that P.W.1 had deposed on his own capacity. Hence this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no impediment to examine PW1 as witness. Since the Appellate Court has erred in finding in the above issue and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Further this Court is of the considered opinion that the deposition of PW1 will not alter the status of the plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant. Hence the only question would be whether the plaintiff is entitled for a direction against the defendant for vacating the suit property. When the landlord is seeking the premises, then the lessee is not having any right to deny the said right. 11. Interestingly the defendant had marked the lease agreement marked as Ex.B.1, wherein it clearly states that the contract between the parties is for “one year”. When the contract had ended and when there is no extension of contract, then the defendant is bound to vacate the premises. 12. For the reasons stated above, the substantial question of law is held in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Decree, dated 03.11.2014 passed in A.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, is hereby set aside. The Judgment and Decree, dated 30.01.2010 passed in O.S.No.940 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai, is hereby confirmed. The defendant is directed to vacate the premises within a period of One Year from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is having right to file Execution petition. No Costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.