JUDGEMENT :

The plaintiffs are the appellants. Challenge in the Second Appeal by the plaintiffs is against the reversal of decree of the trial court by the first appellant court in allowing A.S.No.27 of 2005 and dismissing the suit in O.S.No.1403 of 1994.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule mentioned property. It originally belonged to the plaintiffs' father one Subramania Mudaliar. The said Subramania Mudaliar had entered into a registered lease agreement with one Yusuf Khan, the father of the defendants 1 to 3. This agreement was entered into on 29.03.1942. On the expiry of the said lease, Kanakasabapathy Mudaliar Son of Subramania Mudaliar entered into an other lease deed with Rajunnisa wife of Yusuf Khan on 15.05.1961. Alleging that Rajunnisa has sub-let the property to K.Anbazhagan for running a Metal Store under the name and style of M/s.Visalakshi Metal Store and also alleging that Rajunnisa was pulling down the existing superstructure and attempting to construct a new one, the present suit had been filed.

3. A written statement was presented by Rajunnisa, the 1st defendant admitting to the registered lease deed dated 15.05.1961. According to the written statement, the lease deed permits putting up a superstructure and, therefore, the 1st defendant pleaded that putting up an additional construction is not barred. She would state that the allegations that she defaulted in payment of rent is false and that she is a tenant holding over, as she had been continuing in possession of the property after the expiry of the lease. She would claim that she is entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of The Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act. She challenged the plaintiffs to file the suit for ejectment and denied the sub-tenancy. Pending suit, original plaintiff – S.KrishnasamI and the 1st defendant – Rajunnisa passed away. Their legal representatives were brought on record as 2 to 4 plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 respectively.

4. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and the same was reversed by the first appellate court.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been presented by the plaintiffs. This court while admitting the Second Appeal framed the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court are correct in law in holding that in the absence of any recital in Ex.A2 – Lease Deed dated 15.05.1961, the defendants are entitled to put up a construction on the suit property?

2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in reversing the findings of the trial court in the absence of any documentary evidence let in by defendants 2 to 5?

3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in reversing the decree for mandatory injunction also even though the defendants 2 to 5 have not proceeded any documentary evidence to show that they have planning permission to put up construction on the suit property?

4. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in holding that the second defendant was not a sub-tenant under the deceased first defendant?

6. I have heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel on record for the appellants.

7. The matter was adjourned on 28.02.2023, 09.03.2023, 15.03.2023, 16.03.2023 and finally on 20.03.2023. On all those occasions, the learned counsel for the appellants was ready and made his submissions. I entertained a doubt as to why the respondents are not appearing before the court and requested the counsel on record for the appellants to take fresh notice to the respondents. Ms.K.Janani, learned counsel who was representing the counsel on record for the appellants submitted that she had taken fresh notice and filed affidavit of service (AOS) in USR 10683 dated 27.03.2023. Notice taken to the respondents 2 and 3 through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due have been returned with an endorsement “parties have left”. There