Tenant has no further right over demised property.

(Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2000 passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in A.S.No.258 of 1997, as stated therein.)

This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2000 of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in A.S.No.258 of 1997, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 14.07.1997 in O.S.No.3388 of 1985 passed by the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The unsuccessful Second Defendant is the Appellant herein.

2. The Suit Property relates to lands measuring 474 ¼ sq.ft bearing Corporation Old Door No.31, New Door No.41, Dr.Natesan Road, Second Lane, Krishnampet, Madras 5 comprised in R.S.No.826 (Part). Admittedly, the Suit Property belongs to the Plaintiff - Devasthanam, under whom the First Defendant had become a Tenant. The Appellant Second Defendant is said to have purchased the Lease hold right from the First Defendant

3. Case of the Plaintiff Devasthanam is that the First Defendant was a Tenant under the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Property. The First Defendant had put up a thatched hut on the suit property and he was paying the land rent of Rs.5/- per month to the Plaintiff. The leasehold right of the First Defendant was a personal right to enjoy the same and it was not an absolute and alienable right. As such, the First Defendant cannot validly transfer or assign his personal right. While so, the First Defendant has sold the Thatched hut to the Second Defendant under the Registered Sale Deed dated 24.08.1981. Under Ex.B.1 dated 07.06.1982, the Second Defendant/Appellant sent a letter, requesting the Plaintiff Devasthanam to transfer the leasehold right of the land in her favour and to recognise her as a Tenant under the Plaintiff. Since the First Defendant had no right to transfer the leasehold right, the Second Defendant has not acquired any valid right over the Suit Property. Hence, the Executive Officer of the Plaintiff Devasthanam refused to effect transfer and to recognise the Second Defendant as the Tenant under the Plaintiff.

4. Further case of the Plaintiff is that the Second Defendant had removed the Thatched hut put up by the First Defendant and put up a new construction over the Plaintiff Devasthanam land. The Plaintiff Devasthanam immediately objected for the construction of the new building by the Second Defendant and the Second Defendant did not care for the objection. Hence, the Plaintiff Devasthanam issued Legal Notice on 25.04.1984 (Ex.A.1) calling upon the Second Defendant to restrain from putting up new construction and causing loss and damage to the property of the Plaintiff. The Second Defendant is a total stranger squatting on the Plaintiff's land without any right or authority. The Second Defendant has no right to put any new construction on the Suit Property. Hence, the Plaintiff Devasthanam has filed the Suit for delivery of possession of the Suit Property and for other reliefs.

5. Admitting that the First Defendant was a Tenant in respect of the Suit Property, the Second Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that the First Defendant was owning the pucca super structure put up in the suit property. The Second Defendant has purchased the said super structure together with the lease hold right of the First Defendant under the Sale Deed dated 24.08.1981. The Second Defendant has been paying the ground rent of Rs.5/- to the Plaintiff Devasthanam eversince her purchase. The Second Defendant had also written letters to the Plaintiff Devasthanam requesting it to transfer the lease hold rights in her favour and to recognise her as a Tenant under the Plaintiff Devasthanam in respect of the Suit Property. The Application for transfer of lease hold right of the Suit land is under consideration. One year prior to the Suit, the Second Defendant has changed the roof of the Super structure into RCC and the present market value of the super struc