Judgment:-The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the construction put up unauthorisedly in the plaint schedule property, premises No. 124/125, Sami Naicken Street, Chintadripet, Madras, and to level the ground restoring it to its original condition and also for directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, they came to know about two months prior to the filing of the suit that the defendant had started putting up new construction in the open space reserved by the plaintiffs for putting up shops. This act of the defendant, according to the plaintiffs was unauthorised and illegal on his part, and he has no right or authority to put up construction in the open space reserved by the plaintiffs for constructing a market. The defendant, inter alia, contended that according to the tenancy created in the year 1926 he has put up structures and constructed buildings to suit his purposes in the portion allotted to him and that he never put up any construction in the open space as alleged by the plaintiffs. According to him, the open space is in the same state and condition in which it was in the year 1926 when the premises in old and dilapidated condition was leased to him. The construction made by him in the end of 1963 and completed in April, 1964 was by way of reconstruction of the tiled portion into a terraced one for providing additional accommodation for the classes of the “C.V.S. Higher Elementary School” from standard VI to standard VIII. In any event, the defendant contended, the open space has been included in the tenancy right given to him and as such, the plaintiffs cannot obstruct him from putting up any construction thereon. The defendant also contended that he never set up any adverse or hostile title to the suit property, but, on the other hand, it has been admitted and recognised by the plaintiffs that the open space forms part of, and is included in, the tenancy of the defendant. On these contentions, the defendant prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

2. The trial Court, though on an interpretation of Exhibit A-1 held that the portion measuring 997.5/8 square feet, which is the subject-matter of the suit, was excluded in the lease granted to the defendant, found on the subsequent resolution Exhibit A-3, that it can be construed that the said portion was also let out to the defendant. From Exhibit A-6 dated 10th February, 1964 it also presumed that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the. entire premises as a lessee from 5th July, 1931. On this interpretation and presumption, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The Lower Appellate Court after elaborately discussing the evidence on record and also interpreting Exhibit A-1 and A-3 came to the conclusion that the letter of the defendant mentioned in Exhibit A-3 in a way makes it clear that the plaintiffs leased out the premises as per the resolution Exhibit A-1 reserving the front portion for themselves and that the said lease was only for five years. The Lower Appellate Court also observed that if really in 1927 the entire premises was leased out to the defendant by the plaintiffs without reserving the front portion therein for themselves, there was no need for the defendant to make a request in the letter dated 22nd May, 1931 to lease out the whole premises at the rate of Rs. II per month and that the proposal to pay Re. 1 more per month as per the said letter mentioned in Exhibit A-3 is also in consonance with what was leased out in 1927 was not the entire premises but only the portion excluding the front portion measuring 997.5/8 square feet. In the result, the Lower Appellate Court found that the front portion measuring 997.5/3 square feet in the suit property, was not leased by the plaintiffs to the defendant and that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document