P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction prestraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the plaint schedule shop room. The courts below decreed the suit. The Second Appeal challenges the decree.

2. The plaintiff claimed that he was a tenant of the shop room under the reduces or of the defendant. The defendant had purchased the building from the original owner. The plaintiff had continued in possession as a tenant under him. But now the defendant was seeking to interfere with his possession of the shop room and throw him out of the shop room and hence he was entitled to be protected by the Court from such wrongful dispossession. The defendant in his written statement specifically pleaded that the plaintiff was in possession of the room when the defendant acquired title over the building. The plaintiff was not having any substantial business in the room. The plaintiff offered to surrender the building to the defendant. The plaintiff surrendered the room after receiving a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards solatium and on the defendant purchasing the articles kept by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule r