The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the rights of the appellants as tenants under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, and their entitlement to protection of possession under the Act.

The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction, restraining the respondent from resorting to any unlawful acts to evict them from the suit property.

2. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs was that one Mrs.Perundevi, was the tenant of the suit property under the respondent/defendant. The first plaintiff is the daughter of the said Mrs.Perundevi and the second plaintiff is her son-in-law and they both were living along with Mrs.Perundevi, till her life time and after the death of Mrs.Perundevi also, the appellants/plaintiffs continued to live in the suit property as tenants. As the respondent refused to receive the rent from the appellants/plaintiffs and also attempted to demolish the old building for the purpose of constructing a new building, the suit was filed for the relief stated above.

3. The respondent/defendant contested the suit stating that the grandfather of the first plaintiff viz., Thiru Kanikannan, was the tenant of a portion of 200 sq.ft in the first floor of the suit property and Mrs.Perundevi, continued as a tenant in the suit property and after her death, the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the suit property and the appellants/plaintiffs are not the tenants under the respondent and they have no right to be in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of injunction prayed for.

4. Both the Courts below have held that the appellants/plaintiffs have not proved that they are in possession of the suit property as a tenants and even according to the evidence of the second appellant, the appellants/plaintiffs are not in possession of the entire extent of the suit property and the appellants/plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of a portion of the suit property measuring 7 ½ x 7 ½ feet and therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs have not come to Court with clean particulars about the suit property and the second appellant has also admitted that after the death of Mrs.Perundevi, they have not produced any document to prove their possession in the suit property. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim any right of tenancy to be in possession of the suit property. Hence, the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of injunction prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, this Second Appeal has been filed.

5. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admitting the Second Appeal:-

i) Whether after the death of first appellant's grandfather Thiru.Kanikannan, the tenancy rights in respect of the suit property devolved and inherited by/upon his legal heir/his wife Tmt.Perundevi and subsequent to her death the tenancy rights devolved upon the first appellant, who is daughter, in the absence of valid attornment of tenancy?

ii) Whether in the absence of any valid termination of tenancy by the respondent-trust against the appellants, the findings of the Courts below declaring the appellants as trespassers is correct or valid?

iii) Whether the appellants are tenants and lawful occupier, who are paying the monthly rent to the respondent-trust, entitled to protect their possession from illegal interference/demolition from the hands of the respondent-trust, in the absence of any valid demolition order from the Corporation of Chennai?

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the respondent admitted that Mrs.Perundevi was the tenant under them and the first appellant is the daughter of Mrs.Perundevi and documents were filed to prove that she was residing along with her mother-Mrs.Perundevi, till her life time. Therefore, as per the definition of 'tenant' under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') any person, who continued to be in possession of the suit property, along with the tenant, can also claim tenancy. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the first a