The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the lease and the entitlement to possession based on the lease agreement, as well as the determination that the previous Judgment and decree would not operate as res judicata in the present case.

Second Appeals are directed against common Judgment in A.S. Nos. 531 and 532/2004 reversing the Judgment of the trial court /XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.9044/1996 and O.S.No.4720/1993 dismissing the suit filed by Appellants for permanent injunction and decreeing the suit filed by Plaintiff-Samajam for declaration that Plaintiff Samajam is the lessee and for recovery of possession.

2. Since both the Second Appeals arise out of common Judgment and involve common questions, both Second Appeals were taken up together and shall stand disposed by this Common Judgment. For convenience, parties are referred as per their array in O.S.No.9044/1996.

.3. Property in dispute was the subject matter of several rounds of litigation. Briefly stated factual background which gave rise to the Second Appeals are as follows:-

.The subject matter of dispute is T.S.No.10/2, West Club Road measuring 3600 sq. ft. One Purushothaman was a tenant in the pump room for a period of one year from 10.01.1956 on a rent of Rs.5/- per month subject to the usual condition of lease under the Corporation. The said Purushothaman had encroached a part of the land leased out to the Plaintiff-Sri Sai Baba Baktha Samajam (herein after referred as Plaintiff-Samajam). Corporation of Chennai served notice under Sec.220 of Madras City Municipal Corporation Act (for short MCMC Act) to the encroacher Purushothaman which was challenged by the said Purushothaman in O.S.No.608/1973. In O.S.No.608/1973, Purushothaman has sought for permanent injunction against the Corporation restraining it from enforcing notice dated 22.01.1973. Court dismissed the suit O.S.No.608/1973 filed by the said Purushothaman with an observation stating that notice issued under Sec.220 of MCMC Act is invalid. Thereafter, eviction notice was served upon to Purushothaman and encroachment had been removed on 19.09.1975. 1st Defendant-Corporation leased out the property to the Plaintiff-Samajam from 01.03.1976 for a period of 30 years as per resolution No.1093/1972 dated 110. 1972 and the possession of the land marked as C in Ex. A-4.

.4. O.S.No.5851/1992:- Purushothaman has filed O.S.No.5851/1992 against Shirdi Sairam Samajam for bare injunction alleging that he was a lessee of land in the suit property from Corporation of Madras and obtained an exparte order of interim injunction

.(Ex. A-12). It is alleged that after obtaining exparte order of injunction, Purushothaman with his henchmen trespassed into the suit property which was in possession of Plaintiff-Samajam and unlawfully occupied the same and is alleged to have put up a name board "Chitra Tailors and also alleged to have constructed a compound wall on the eastern boundary of the property trespassed by him.

5. O.S.No.9044/1996 (City Civil Court, Chennai

------------------------------------------------ }

C.S.No.1026/1992 ( High Court, Madras )

Plaintiff Samajam has filed C.S.No.1026/1992 against Corporation and Purushothaman for declaration that Plaintiff-Samajam is a lessee of Corporation of Madras and for recovery of possession. Advocate-commissioner was appointed by the High Court. Advocate-commissioner has inspected the suit property and took photographs in the presence of Purushothaman. It was noticed that Halogen lamp installed by Samajam in the middle of western boundary of the suit property was noticed. In C.S.No.1026/1992 Plaintiff-Samajam had alleged that Purushothaman had trespassed into the suit property and Plaintiff- Samajam sought for recovery of possession. After institution of the suit, it was reported that Purushothaman had sold the property to the Defendants 3 and 4/Appellants and they were impleaded in the suit C.S.No.1026/1992. Due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of City Civil Court, C.S.No.1026/1992 was transferred to City Civil Court/XIII Assistant Judge, Civil Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.9044/1996.

.6. Case of the Plaintiff-Samajam is that they are in l