- (1.) This appeal is by special leave. Challenge herein is to the affirming revisional order of the Madras High court upholding the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction against the first three defendants respondents from alienating the disputed property and restraining all the respondents from interfering with plaintiffs' possession. Plaintiffs are appellants in this court.
(2.) Plaintiffs are a registered firm and carry on the business of running a rice mill as also an oil mill at Erode in the State of Tamil Nadu. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and defendant 3 is the widow of one Sundaraswamy Chettiar who owned the disputed property which consisted of a small building and a large open space abutting behind. The plaintiffs took lease of the entire property in 1936. The lease was on annual basis but there was no provision for renewal. This property came to be given two separate municipal door numbers. 'initially being 27 and 28. and later being III and 112.
(3.) Plaintiffs came to court pleading that the lease was initially tit a vacant site and their purpose was to put up suitable structures for running a rice and an oil mill. Initially the monthly rent was Rs. 25. 00 but with improvements being made by the plaintiffs and rent rising up in the locality there has been escalation in the monthly rent. Very valuable structures have been put by the plaintiffs to the knowledge of defendants 1-3 and plaintiffs have been carrying on their business in the mills set up by them. In June 1975 the State government extended the provisions of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1922) to the City limits of Erode. The defendants 1-3 started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and negotiated with defendant 4 for alienating the property. That led to the institution of the suit.;