The defendants' denial of the plaintiff's title and their possession without paying rent after the lease period expired led the Court to conclude that the defendants were akin to trespassers and not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: These Appeals Suits are filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2021 made in O.S.Nos.153 of 2012 & 98 of 2015, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

Aggrieved over the common decree and judgment passed in O.S.Nos.153 of 2012 and 98 of 2015, both the appeals came to be filed.

2. O.S.No.153 of 2012 was filed for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property. O.S.No.98 of 2015 is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making further alteration and improvements in the superstructure of the suit property.

3. Since the facts in both the suits are one and the same, the brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of the appeals, are as follows:

3.1. An extent of 20,800 sq.ft., was purchased by one Razia Begam on 24.09.1946. Subsequently, she has executed a settlement deed on 14.06.1964 in favour of her four sisters viz., Habibunnissa Begam, Hanifa Begam, Mohamadha Begam and Feroza Begam. The said Razia Begam died on 03.01.1975. The settlement deed executed by the said Razia Begam in favour of her four sisters was challenged by one Mr.Babu by filing a Civil Suit in O.S.No.440 of 1975. Civil Court had finally upheld the validity of the settlement deed executed in favour of the sisters of Razia Begam.

3.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that taking advantage of the dispute among the title holders, the tenants inducted by Razia Begam were enjoyed the possession without renewing or extending the lease. The beneficiaries under the settlement deed and their legal descendants generously and magnanimously had permitted the occupants who are originally inducted into possession as tenants to carry on their business. In fact the occupants had located their shops according to their whims and fancies. The superstructure were also changed and altered frequently to suit their business. The locations are shifted to one place and another and the area of occupation also varied by mutual adjustment among the occupants. The occupants were also allowed to pay tax to the superstructures put up by them. On 05.03.1992, one Abdul Salam, who is the vendor of the plaintiff, has purchased 1531 ½ sq.ft., of land from the legal heirs of one of the beneficiaries by name Habibunnissa Begam, who died on 09.12.1991. The vendor of Mr.Abdul Salam sold another extent of 1682 sq.ft., to one Krishnaveni. The purchasers viz., Krishnaveni and Abdul Salam had a dispute with regard to the location of their respective properties. However, the dispute was resolved peacefully.

3.3. The plaintiff has purchased an extent of 480 sq. ft., from Abdul Salam with specific boundaries. Even before the sale in favour of the plaintiff, Abdul Salam had sent a legal notice dated 27.04.2000. After the legal notice, the defendants have approached the plaintiff's vendor and requested to permit them to carry on the business and they expressed their inability to pay the rent. In pursuance of the request, the plaintiff's vendor gave up their demand for payment of rent and allowed to them to carry on the business. Since the plaintiff has purchased 480 sq.ft., on 14.06.2006, from the legal heirs of Abdul Salam, the defendants became enraged and started to threaten the plaintiff and attempted to make alteration in the superstructures. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed both the suits.

4. In the written statement, the defendant took a stand denying the title of the property. Hence, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 01.07.2012, cancelling the permission for carrying on the business in the suit property. Reply was also sent on the false allegations on 11.07.2012. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has purchased only undivided share and he has no title to the property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

5. It is the case of the defendants that an extent of 20,800 sq.ft., was originally owned by one Razia Begam. Sh