AR. Lakshmanan, J. - (1.)THE defendant in O. S. No. 579 of 1984 on the file of the first Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant in this appeal.
(2.)THE suit was initially filed by one P. Nirmala as an indigent person in O. P. No. 46 of 1983. THE said P. Nirmala is the wife of the 1st respondent and mother of respondents 2 to 5. Leave was granted to her to sue as an indigent person. P. Nirmala died before the suit was taken on file. Hence, her legal representatives viz. , her husband and four children, who are the respondents herein, were brought on record in O. P. No. 46 of 1983 itself. THE respondents herein also sought for permission to sue as indigent persons. Leave was granted to them also to sue as indigent persons. THEreupon, O. P. No. 46 of 1983 was converted as O. S. No. 579 of 1984.
The suit was prosecuted by the plaintiffs on the following pleadings. The deceased plaintiff Nirmala wanted to start a bus body building industry under the name and style of M/s. Cholan Industries by availing financial assistance by way of loan to an extent of Rs. 2. 88 lakhs from the pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PIPDIC ). In this regard, the deceased plaintiff p. Nirmala's husband viz. , the 1st respondent herein, who happened to be a good friend of the defendant/ appellant, approached the latter for a lease of his land to start the industry. The defendant, with a view to help his friend, agreed to give on lease a small piece of his land on a low rent of Rs. 1,000 per annum, that too for a period of ten years without any increase of rent. In furtherance of the same, Ex. A-1 lease deed dated 27. 8. 1981 was executed by the defendant in favour of the deceased plaintiff in respect of the following lands: (i) Cadastre No. 148/7/8/1, 148/7/8/2, 148/5/8/2 pt = r. S. No. 120/2 = 75 Kuzhies. (ii)Cadastre No. 147,147bis (part) = R. S. No. l20/9 = 50 kozhies. Both items put together, 1 Kani, 25 Kuzhies and O Vizam, out of which one Kani only on the southern side, the boundaries are: West of Sankaralingam's land, South of Kannan and four others land, North of Villupuram Road , East of Jainabi's land, Since the above lease deed was to be in force for ten years, the said deed was also duly registered.

The deceased plaintiff applied for a loan from PIPDIC on the strength of Ex. A-1, Ex. A-6 letter of no objection dated 9. 9. 1981 said to have been given by the defendant to PIPDIC, and the mortgage deed Ex. A-21 dated 5. 7. 1982 executed by the deceased plaintiff Nirmala in favour of PIPDIC. Even though the defendant had only leased out the lands aforementioned for a period often years on an annual rent of Rs. 1,000 the deceased plaintiff had executed Ex. A-21 dated 5. 7. 1982 in favour of PIPDIC mortgaging not the leasehold interest but the entire land itself, as security for the repayment of the loan of Rs. 2. 88 lakhs to be advanced by PIPDIC to the deceased plaintiff, as evidenced by Ex. A-7 dated 5. 6. 1982.

The deceased plaintiff, in the meantime,started putting up construction for the purpose of her proposed industry. She had constructed about ten pillars and partition walls for a room, as seen from the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. The defendant was away from Pondicherry at the time of construction. When he returned to his village, he realised that the construction was put up not on the leasehold land but on the neighbouring other land also owned by the defendant. Hence, the defendant objected to the construction and asked the deceased plaintiff to stop further construction. He also sent Ex. A-8 letter dated 22. 10. 1982 through his advocate to PIPDIC informing them that the deceased plaintiff had put up construction not on the leasehold land but on the other lands of the defendant. In that letter the defendant further requested the PIPDIC to defer granting of licence to the deceased plaintiff pending adjudication of the dispute. The PIPDIC wrote Ex. A-10 letter dated 9. 11. 1982 to the deceased plaintiff informing her that the loan sanctioned would not be released unless and until the dispute between her and the defendant is resolved.

Thereafter, the deceased plaintiff filed O. S. No. 212 of 1983 (subsequently renumbered as O. S. No. 1890 of 1986) on the file of the principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, etc. , from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It would be relevant to notice that the suit properties in O. S. No. 212 of 1983 were the same properties mentioned in the lease deed Ex. A-1. Subsequently, the plaint in that suit was returned for presentation before proper court since the court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction. Even by that time, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff viz. , the respondents herein who are the husband and children, were brought on record. That suit was not pursued further by them.

(3.)THE deceased plaintiff instead of resolving the dispute regarding the identity of the property on which she had put up the construction viz. , whether the construction was put up in the property leased out under Ex. A-1 or outside the said property, by getting the lands measured by the Revenue and Land Settlement officials, had filed the present suit (O. S. No. 579 of 1984) for the following reliefs: (a) To permit the plaintiffs to sue as indigent persons. (b) To declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages against the defendant at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month till he recognises their leasehold right over the suit property and also withdraw all his objections made by him in person as well as through his advocate notice to the PIPDIC authorities. (c) To direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000 as damages for the period from 1. 1. 1983 to 30. 6. 1983. (d) To direct the defendant to pay the costs of the suit and such other orders as may be deemed fit.
The prayer in the suit pre-supposes that the deceased plaintiff had put up construction only on the leasehold land and the defendant had committed breach of contract of lease by illegally and unjustly interfering with their right to enjoy the leasehold properties. As a consequence, the plaintiffs had suffered loss of profit which they would have earned from the industry had it been allowed to run. The damages were claimed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the PIPDIC authorities in their project report had expected the industry to commence operation from 1. 1. 1983 and that the industry would earn a profit of Rs. 12,000 per month. The plaintiffs further pleaded that if only the defendant had not interfered with their leasehold rights, the PIPDIC would have released the loan sanctioned by them and the plaintiffs would have completed the construction and established the industry, which would have commenced operation from 1. 1. 1983 and by this, they would have earned a profit of Rs. 10,000 per month. This is the basis or the foundation for claiming damage at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month by the plaintiffs.

The defendant resisted the suit contending inter alia that the deceased plaintiff had constructed not on the leasehold land, but on other lands belonging to him. Hence, he was constrained to object to the further construction in his other lands. Therefore, it was only the plaintiffs who were responsible for their wrong acts and that the defendant was not guilty of breach of contract. The defendant further contended that the damages as claimed was not at all maintainable and that the defendant put the plaintiffs to strict proof of their claim.