Landlords title cannot be denied without surrendering the possession.

These four appeals arise out of a Common Judgment rendered by the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram in O.S.Nos.40 of 1979, 41 of 1979,149 of 1980 and 150 of 1980. The first suit was filed by four plaintiffs against Dr.V.Gurumurthy for recovery of Rs.9,000 as damages for use and occupation of tenanted property. O.S.No.41 of 1979 was filed by two plaintiffs against Gowri Corporation represented by its Managing Partner, V.Mahadevan for a similar relief viz., for recovery of Rs.18,000 as damages for use and occupation of the tenanted property. O.S.No.149 of 1980 was filed by Dr.V.Gurumurthy, i.e., the defendant in O.S.No.40 of 1979 against ‘Savithri Ammal’s Sama Veda Patasalai, by Trustee, R.Krishnaswami Dikshithar, and the four plaintiffs in O.S.No.40 of 1979 as defendants 2 to 5 for declaration that the plaintiff Dr.V.Gurumurthy is a tenant only under the first defendant and not under the other defendants and they are not entitled to evict him from the premises, and for injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 5 from interfering with his possession as a lessee. O.S.No.150 of 1980 was filed by Gowri Corporation by its sole Proprietor, V.Mahadeva Iyer, i.e., the defendant in O.S.No.41 of 1979 against Savithiriammal Sama Veda Patasalai by Trustee, R.Krishnaswami Dikshithar and the two plaintiffs in O.A.No.41 of 1979 for declaration that the plaintiff-Gowri Corporation is a tenant only under the first defendant and not under the other defendants i.e., the plaintiffs in O.S.No.41 of 1979 and they are not entitled to evict it from the premises, and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with its possession as a lessee.

2. The trial court recorded common evidence in all the four suits and rendered common Judgment in which he decreed the two suits O.S.No.40 of 1979 and 41 of 1979 as prayed for, and dismissed the other two suits O.S.No.149 of 1980 and 150 of 1980. Aggrieved by this decision Dr.V.Gurumurthy - the defendant in O.S.No.40 of 1979 who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.149 of 1980 has filed appeals respectively A.S.Nos.57 and 56 of 1986, the Gowri Corporation represented by its Managing Partner/Sole Proprietor V.Mahadeva Iyer/defendant in O.S.No.41 of 1979 who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.150 of 1980, has filed appeals respectively A.S.Nos.323 of 1981 and 58 of 1986.

.3. In the suits O.S.Nos.40 of 1979 and 41 of 1979 filed for damages, the first plaintiff is the same person viz., R.Krishnaswami Dikshithar, but in the first suit O.S.No.40 of 1979 there are three other plaintiffs and in the second suit O.S.No.41 of 1979 there is one other plaintiff. It appears that the defendants in these two suits were tenants in respect of two portions of one building and they were inducted into the building by the first plaintiff in both the suits as the owner, and subsequently he sold one portion of the building to plaintiffs 2 to 4 in O.S.No.40 of 1979 in which the defendant therein is in occupation, and he sold the other portion to the second plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1979 which the defendant in that suit is in possession. It is also stated in the plaints themselves that the first plaintiff has no objection for the other plaintiffs to receive the rents and for a decree being passed accordingly.

4. In O.S.No.40 of 1979 the plaintiffs have claimed that the rent payable by the defendant was Rs.35 per mensem and the portion of the property in occupation of the defendant would easily fetch a rent of Rs.250 per mensem, and as he is not a tenant he is liable to pay damages at that rate, and from 10. 1975 to 30.9.1978 he has not paid any damages and therefore he is liable to pay a total damage of Rs.9,000. In O.S.No.41 of 1979 the plaintiffs have claimed that the rent payable by the defendant was Rs.100 per mensem and the portion of the property in occupation of the defendant would easily fetch a rent of Rs.500 per mensem, and as it is not a tenant it is liable to pay damages at that rate, and from 10. 1975 to 30.9.1978 it has n