The central legal point established in the judgment is that a landlord has the right to seek the removal of permanent structures erected by the tenant, contrary to Section 108 (p) of the Transfer of Property Act, even during the subsistence of the lease.

Appellants were the two defendants in a suit for injunction brought by the original plaintiff-respondent, now represented by his legal representatives additional respondents 2 to 4. They are tenants of a non-residential building by the side of the road on the east and a room further west and the intervening space in between. The building and room were taken on rent for running their trade. The building is marked 1, the room 2 and the vacant space 3 in the sketch Ext. C-2 prepared by a Commissioner. The vacant space is the B Schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff sought a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any building in or altering the nature of the B schedule property and a mandatory injunction directing them to remove the structures put up by them without his knowledge or consent. The main ground of the defence was that they were putting up a shed in the B Schedule with the consent of the plaintiff, that they would remove it at the time of surrendering the lease and that in such circumstances the structure was not liable to be demolished. The trial Court found that the structure was put up by the defendants with the consent of the plaintiff and that there was accordingly no ground for granting the injunction. On appeal the Appellate Court held in the first instance that it was not very necessary to consider whether the defendants had the plaintiff's consent as it thought that during the currency of the lease it was open to the defendants to use the B Schedule land for constructing a room and that at the most what the plaintiff could require was restoration of the property to its original condition at the time of the surrender. On this finding the appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff thereupon came to this Court in S. A. 749 of 1968. By the judgment dated January 11, 1971, this Court held that there was no proof of the agreement set up by the defendants permitting construction of the building and that the only question was whether they were entitled as lessees to put up the structure. It was further held that the courts below had made no reference to Section 108 (p), Transfer of Property Act, which prohibits the erection of permanent structures in the leasehold without the consent of the landlord and that as there was no consent the primary question to be decided was whether the structures attempted to be put up by them were permanent structures. This Court accordingly set aside the decision of the appellate court and remanded the appeal for fresh disposal. The Lower Appellate Court has now found that the structure constructed by the defendants is a permanent one and has in that view issued a mandatory injunction directing them to demolish it within two months, failing which the plaintiffs were allowed to get it removed through court.

2. Counsel for the appellants contended in the first place that in the nature of the direction in the second appeal to determine whether the structure was a permanent one the lower appellate court should have either taken evidence itself or remanded the suit to the trial court for that purpose and that the omission to do so has prejudiced his clients. The Judgment in S. A. 749 of 1968 does not indicate that the appellants made any request for opportunity to give evidence. What is more it shows that this court directed that the question whether the structure was a permanent one or not has to be decided on the materials in the court, thus excluding any remand for taking evidence by the lower appellate court. The appellants themselves have no case that they made any motion to give evidence before the lower appellate court. I see no ground to allow a remand particularly as the materials in evidence are sufficient to enable an adjudication.

3. The records show that the appellants started the construction of a granite wall partly behind item No. 1 building and along the northern border of plot No. 3 on the line CDEF in Ext. C-2. The appellate judgment shows th