The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of estoppel, where the tenants were found to be estopped from denying the plaintiffs' title and ownership of the property.

1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The plaintiffs submit that the suit property and its adjacent properties with some old buildings measuring 81384 sq.ft. situated in S.No.1113/2, Ward No.6, Dindigul Town originally belonged to the Church of South India Trust Association. The said property was leased out to one Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Late Pon Srinivasan by the said CSI Trust Association. Later, she had sub-leased the said old buildings and also a portion of the vacant site to various persons. Accordingly, the suit property as vacant site was leased out by her to the defendant who had put up the superstructures on it. The defendant is doing business in the name and style of Selvam Xerox in the suit property. Subsequently, the CSI Trust Association took necessary steps to recover the properties leased out to the said Vijayalakshmi and later, the matter was amicably settled between them. Accordingly, the said CSI Trust Association agreed to sell an extent of 18000 sq.ft from out of 81384 sq.ft. (bounded on the north and west - the property belongs to the CSI Trust Association, on the east - Thiruvalluvar Salai, on the south - Vinayakar temple and spencers compound) to the said Vijayalakshmi and she in turn, agreed to surrender the other portions of the said property which was leased out to her. As per that settlement, the said CSI Trust Association entered into a registered sale agreement with her on 03.07.1992 in respect of the said 18000 sq.ft. The said Vijayalakshmi surrendered the other portions of the properties which were originally leased out to her by the CSI Trust Association in July 1992 and the defendant as well as the other tenants had attorned their respective tenancy agreements with the CSI Trust Associations. In pursuance of that, the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the said Association on 29.07.1992 and as per that agreement, the defendant agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.120/- per month on or before 5th of every succeeding English calendar month and in default of payment of two months rent, the said lessor was entitled to demand and vacate the defendant without notice etc. The defendant had also agreed not to sub let the suit property or transfer the business in it in part or fully to anyone and also agreed that no document will be created to occupy the suit property. The defendant lastly was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month.

2. The plaintiffs further submit that the they had purchased the said property of 18000 sq.ft. from CSI Trust Association with the consent of the said Vijayalakshmi as per the registered sale deed dated 24.02.1995. The plaintiffs as well as the said CSI Trust Association had informed the same to all the tenants. Though the plaintiffs had informed the defendant about their ownership of the suit property, he had not paid the rent amounts to them and they were constrained to send a registered notice to him through their Advocate on 11.09.1995 stating about their ownership. Even though the defendant had received the said notice on 13.09.1995, he had not complied with demand made in it and also not cared to send any reply for the same. The plaintiffs further submit that the defendant had not paid the rent from the month of March 1995 onwards and committed willful default in payment of rent. Moreover, the suit property as well as the adjacent properties, purchased by the plaintiffs are immediately required by them for their own use and occupation in order to construct a new building on it. The plaintiffs have also validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant under a registered notice dated 15.11.1995 with the end of the tenancy month of December 1995. The defendant had received the said notice on 18.11.1995 and sent a reply notice dated 28.12.1995 with false and frivolous allegations. For the subsequent periods after the termination of the tenancy, the defendant is liable to pay the damages for use and occupation from the date of the pla