JUDGMENT.— The suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of the suit property. The first defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the vacant site. The lease was long prior to 1955, the monthly rent being Rs. 20. The first defendant put up a superstructure also prior to 1955 on the site as a tenant. On 15th July, 1965 the first defendant assigned both the leasehold right and the superstructure in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff determined the tenancy by notice dated 2nd May, 1966 and called upon the first defendant to deliver vacant possession. In the notice, the plaintiff had offered compensation of Rs. 300 to the first defendant for the superstructure put up by him. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that the site which was leased out to the first defendant was part of the plaintiff Church and that therefore, the first defendant has no right of purchase of the land itself. In reply to this notice, the first defendant stated that he sold the superstructure to the second defendant and that the second defendant would pay the future rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a further notice to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document