A tenant is not entitled to seek the relief of declaration if they do not have any right, title, and interest over the property.

The judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2006 made in A.S.No.112 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 27.7.2004 and made in O.S.No.351 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam are under challenge in this memorandum of second appeal.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.351 of 2001, whereas the respondent is the defendant.

3. For easy reference and for the sake of convenience, the appellant may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent be referred to as the defendant wherever the context so require.

4. The brief averments, in the plaint, leading to the filing of the suit before the trial Court are as under:-

a. The plaintiff is the tenant under the defendant in respect of 'A' Schedule vacant land. The plaintiff is having absolute right over the superstructure in 'B' Schedule property. One Mr. Ramanathan, who is the brother of the plaintiff's father, had taken the vacant land for rent at Rs.20/- per month, for running a small industry, from one Rajambal, who was the President of the defendant Trust. On 21.1.1957, the said Rajambal nominated the administrators and gave a letter to the said Ramanathan asking to pay the rent to the administrators. Thereafter, the said Ramanathan had transferred the right over the superstructure and the licence in favour of his brother, namely, Seetharaman, who is the father of the plaintiff, by way of a receipt, dated 11.10.1960. From that day onwards, the father of the plaintiff being the owner of the superstructure and the tenant of the vacant site had been paying the rent and at last, he had paid rent at Rs.250/-.

b. After his death, the plaintiff has become the tenant and converted the industry into a flour mill and also transferred the electricity connection in his name. He has also been paying the rent regularly. Since there was a dispute between another tenant Sivalingam and the Trust, the plaintiff was compelled and pressurised to execute a tenancy agreement, or otherwise, he will be evicted by demolishing the superstructure.

c. Only upon furnishing a copy of the agreement, he came to know that the superstructure belonged to the Trust and the rent was fixed at Rs.1,500/- per month and collected Rs.25,000/- towards rental advance. Hence, the present suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

5. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement stating that the suit itself is not maintainable. The plaintiff is the tenant as per the agreement, dated 1.6.2001. It is false to state that the superstructure in 'B' schedule property was constructed by the predecessors of the plaintiff. The defendant Trust never leased out the ground of the suit property for rent and the plaintiff has accepted for being the tenant of the building along with the land as found in the deed of agreement, dated 1.6.2001. Since the plaintiff has not paid the rent properly and in time and also denied the title of the defendant, the defendant issued a notice terminating the tenancy right on 10.1.2002.

6. Based on the material proposition of facts arising from the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the trial Court has formulated as nearly as eight issues for the better adjudication of the suit.

7. In order to substantiate their respective cases, both the plaintiff and the defendant were directed to face the trial. Accordingly, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined on his part. During the course of their examination Exs.A1 to A34 were marked. On the other hand, one Ravindran was examined and no document was marked, on the side of the defendant.

8. On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, the trial court had proceeded to dismiss the suit.

9. Having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 27.7.2004, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.112 of 2004 on the file