P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The appellant in S. A. 334 of 1997 is the plaintiff and the appellant in S.A. No. 327 of 1997 is the defendant. The plaintiff is the owner of a building. It was let out to the defendant. The defendant was thus in possession as a tenant of the building. While the defendants was in occupation as a tenant, the building was gutted by fire. The defendant, the tenant put up a structure of his own without the consent of the landlord and without being authorised to do so by the terms of the transaction between the parties. In that context, the plaintiff filed the suit for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the unauthorised construction put up by him and for recovery of possession on the basis that the subject-matter of the lease having been destroyed, the tenancy had come to an end and he was entitled to recover. The plaintiff pleaded that the subject-matter of the lease was completely destroyed by fire. The defendant joined issue with the plaintiff, on that question. He set up a case that the building was only partly destroyed. The trial court clearly held that the building was fully destroyed by the fire. This finding was accepted