Property identification and trustee-maintained eviction proceedings upheld for a public charitable trust's demolition and reconstruction claim.

A property description in a suit notice and plaint was held sufficient where the premises were identified as specific shop portions at a stated door number and had been occupied by the tenants for decades, so the objection of uncertainty failed under Order VII Rule 3 CPC. The Court also accepted that trustees could maintain eviction proceedings on behalf of a public charitable trust under Order XXXI Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and that a change in individual trustees did not affect the representative suit. On the facts, the trust's case for eviction for demolition and reconstruction of an old, dilapidated building was upheld, with the exemption for public charitable trusts under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act applied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit notice and the suit were bad for want of identification of the property. (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for eviction.

Issue (i): Whether the suit notice and the suit were bad for want of identification of the property.

Analysis: The property was described in the notice and plaint as shop portions in the premises bearing Door No. 37 (Old No. 100), Godown Street, Madras-1, and the tenants had occupied and dealt with the premises for decades without objection. The Court applied Order VII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and held that the description was sufficient to identify the immovable property. The objection was raised only belatedly and did not show any real uncertainty about the subject matter.

Conclusion: The suit notice and the suit were not bad for want of identification of the property, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for eviction.

Analysis: The trust was a public charitable trust, the defendants were monthly tenants, and the building was old and in a dilapidated condition. The Court held that the trustees could maintain the suit for and on behalf of the trust under Order XXXI, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that a change in the individual trustees did not defeat the representative character of the suit. The Court also accepted the trust's case that demolition and reconstruction were reasonable for better use of the trust property, and relied on the exemption under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for public charitable trusts.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to eviction, and the decree for possession was confirmed.

Final Conclusion: The tenants' appeals failed, the trust's appeals for damages also failed, and the decree for eviction in favour of the trust stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A public charitable trust can maintain eviction proceedings through its trustees, and a property description is sufficient if it reasonably identifies the premises occupied by the tenants even without separate sub-numbering of each portion.

---