No interference with the order of Trial Court refusing to grant injunction required.

S.S. Subramani. J.

These Appeals are by the plaintiffs in C.S. No.1031 of 1994, on the file of this Court. O.S.A. No.4 of 1995 is against the order in Original Application No.773 of 1994, and O.S.A. No.5 of 1995 is preferred against the order in Original Application No.774 of 1994.

2. The suit filed by the appellants is for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents herein or their men or agents from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their occupation of their portions in the groundfloor and in the first floor at No.124, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras-79.

3. The relevant facts as set out in the plaint are as follows: According to the plaintiffs they are sub-tenants who cause into occupation of the premises in the year 1978 and 1972 respectively. According to them, they have taken those premises from the 11th defendant in the suit. The 1st defendant is the landlord. According to them, they came into occupation of the premises in their possession on the basis of authorised sub lease and they are entitled to be in possession of the same until they are dispossessed in accordance with law. It is contended by them further, that the 1st defendant has sold the property to defendants 2 to 10. It is covered by six sale deeds. All these pertain to undivided shares of the land and building. It is further averred that by calculating the area covered by these sale deeds, defendants 2 to 10 have purchased only a built up area of 1,800 sq.ft. in the ground floor out of a total extent of 5,800 sq.ft. and 1,400 sq.ft. in the first floor out of 5,800 sq.ft. therein. It is also stated by them that in the second floor only 1,000 sq.ft. has been sold out of 4,000 sq.ft. On the basis of the said calculation the plaintiffs contend that the area in their occupation cannot be said to have been purchased by defendants 2 to 10 or until it is finally determined as to the area purchased by them they are not liable to be dispossessed. It is further stated that defendants 2 to 10 filed two Rent Control Petitions, viz., R.C.O.P. Nos.776 of 1992 and 3297 of 1991 against the 11th defendant and they have obtained an ex parte order of eviction. The same, according to the plaintiffs, is collusive and since they are in occupation of the premises as authorised sub lessees, they are not liable to be evicted from these premises. It is also stated in the plaint that these plaintiffs have filed O.S. No.9180 of 1992 and O.S. No.4773 of 1994, on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, seeking certain reliefs but subsequent to the filing of the above suits, they came to know that the sale deeds in favour of defendants 2 to 10 are not for the entire area, but only for portions of the building. Since defendants 2 to 10 are owners of only limited extent, they have no locus standi or title to the extent of 5,800 sq.ft. in the ground floor or 5,800 sq. ft. in the first floor. So, the eviction ordered by the Rent Controller is invalid. It is on the above grounds they seek permanent injunction. Along with the suit they filed O.A. Nos.773 and 774 of 1994. In O.S.No.773 of 1994, they wanted an injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 10 from dispossessing them pursuant to the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.3297 of 1991 on the file of the X Small Causes Court, Madras. In O.A. No.774 of 1994, they sought a similar relief namely, an injunction from being dispossessed from the premises pursuant to the order passed in R.C.O.P. No.776 of 1992 on the file of the same court.

4. In the Original Applications, the 1st defendant who is the owner, filed a common counter affidavit denying the allegations in the plaint. According to the owner (Trust), it sold the entire property to defendants 3 to 10. Because the building is in the occupation of tenants, only approximate area is given. But a reading of the description will show that the entire property and building have been conveyed to defendants 2 to 10 and they did not retain any portion of the property