JUDGMENT :- The 1st defendant in O. S. No. 82 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai is the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 816 of 1966 and the 2nd defendant is the Petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1944 of 1965. The plaintiff filed the suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The plaintiff's case is that he was a lessee under the 1st defendant and from the year 1953-54 the plaintiff as such lessee was in occupation of the vegetarian and the non-vegetarian stalls belonging to the 1st defendant and situate in the Central Bus Stand, Madurai. The plaintiff also avers that during 1954-55 he carried out extensive improvements to both the stalls at a cost of about Rs. 30,000/- and the stalls as they exist to-day were not constructed by the municipality. The lease deeds Exs. B-13 and B-14 were executed both between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and they cover the period commencing from 1-4-1960 and expiring with 31-3-1963. The plaintiff is said to have applied for a renewal of the Lease on 14-2-1963 after having paid the licence fee for running the respective hotels for the year 1963-64 under Exs. A. 61 and A. 62. On 14-3-1963 the 1st defendant passed a resolution stating that the leasehold interest in the two stalls in question would be auctioned on 22-3-63. The plaintiff petitioned on 21-3-1963 asking for a renewal of the lease and indicating therein that he has practically reconstructed the stalls at a heavy cost and that the lease should therefore be renewed in his favour. On 23-3-1963, the plaintiff was directed to produce the records in his possession to show that he constructed the buildings and effected the improvements. It is therefore not denied that the constructions were so put up as claimed by the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff's case that he went to the office of the Commissioner of the municipality, but as he was not available, the accounts were not scrutinised. As resolved, the auction was held on 22-3-1963 and the leasehold interest of the vegetarian stall was auctioned and purchased by the 2nd defendant in the suit. This was also confirmed later. The plaintiff again requested for a renewal of the lease in spite of the auction and on 2-5-1963 the plaintiff sent three separate cheques, one for Rs. 2,100/-, the second for Rs. 700/- and the third for Rs. 400/-, representing respectively the advance, the rent for April, 1963 and the caution deposit for the occupation of the stalls. It is in evidence that these cheques were cashed but the 1st defendant would have it that the amounts were kept in deposit register and were not adjusted towards the rent for April, 1963. D. W. 2 who was examined on behalf of the 1st defendant, however, admits that as per the entry in Ex. B-18 the amount of Rs. 700/- was received as rent. The Lower Court also finds that this was adjusted as and by way of rent. I shall revert to this aspect at a later stage.

2. Finally, the plaintiff received a communication on 5-6-1963 rejecting his request for renewal of the lease in his favour. On 6-6-1963 at about 5-30 p.m., when the plaintiff was carrying on his normal business in the stalls the 1st defendant with the help of its officers and the police entered the suit premises, threw away the articles from the hotel to the outside platform and practically forced out the persons who were taking tiffin in both the hotels and drove out the plaintiff's servants therefrom. The 1st defendant having thus taken possession of the two premises, put the 2nd defendant, the new lessee, in possession of the vegetarian stall on 9-6-1963. The non-vegetarian stall was re-auctioned on 12-6-1963 in spite of the protests by the plaintiff, and even so the 2nd defendant was the successful bidder and it appears that the non-vegetarian stall is also now in the possession of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant's contentions are that the plaintiff is not a lessee, but only a licensee;