Admissibility of tenancy at will in evidence.

Srinivasan, J.

1. The only question that arises in the second appeal and the civil revision petition is whether the appellant, who was the defendant in the suit is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. That in turn depends upon the question whether the subject-matter of the lease in his favour by the respondent-plaintiff was a land or a building?

2. The trial Court held that the subject-matter of the lease was a land and that the defendant was entitled to purchase the land under Section 9 of the Act. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the suit and passed an order in favour of the defendant in his petition (O.P. No. 5 of 1977) for purchasing the land at the market value in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The lower appellate Court reversed the said conclusion of the Court and held that the subject-matter of the lease was a land and building and that it was not a lease of a mere vacant land and therefore, the defendant was not entitled to the benefits of the Act. Consequently, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit.

3. The admitted facts are as follows: Prior to the date when the defendant became a lessee under the plaintiff his brother by name Durai was a lessee and before him the property had been leased to a veterinary dispensary, Srivilliputur. The first document to which the defendant's brother is a party is Ex.A6, dated 4.12.1945. That is an application by Durai to the Secretary of the plaintiff Committee for leasing out land and the building which was rented out to the veterinary dispensary. He has stated therein that he wanted it for purpose of putting up oil Mills. On the reverse of Ex.A6 there is an endorsement by a member of the Committee that the place may be let out at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. That was approved by the Committee and a draft lease deed was prepared accordingly. The lease deed which came into existence immediately thereafter is Ex. A7, dated 28.12.1945 which describes the property as land and building. There is a clause in the lease deed which permits the lessee to instal the mill etc., in the demised property without causing any harm to the buildings which belonged to the Committee. This indicates that what was leased was not a vacant land but it included some buildings. That lease was for a period of three years. With regard to the other clauses in the lease deed I will make a reference later.

4. The next lease deed in favour of Durai was of 1.3.1952 evidenced by Ex. A1. It is on similar lines to Ex. A7. Here again, we find reference to both the land and the building.

5. Durai has transferred his rights to his brother, the defendant herein and also wrote a letter to the plaintiff-Committee on 4.11.1958 which is marked as Ex.A8. In that letter, Durai has referred to the rice mill shop bearing No. C-27 and he has stated that he has transferred the shop to his brother, the defendant herein and that the latter may be accepted as a tenant of the plaintiff-Committee. There is no reference whatever in this letter to any lease of land being transferred to the defendant. At the bottom of the letter the defendant has endorsed his consent for being a tenant of the plaintiff and assured the plaintiff that he would pay the rent without any default.

6.In addition to these documents which are relied upon by the lower appellate Court to come to the conclusion that the lease was of land and building, the lower appellate Court has also referred to Exs.A9 to All which were plans sent to the Srivilliputtur Municipality by the plaintiff. The plans show that the plaintiff applied for permission to construct some additional structures in the disputed property. The plans also show that there were some constructions already existing on the land. The lower appellate Court has also referred to Exs. A23 to A27 which were signed by the defendant himself. Those documents purported to be the accounts maintained by the plaintiff for e