CHENNAI VEDANTHA SANGAM BY ITS SECRETARY Vs. V. SHANMUGHASUNDARAM AND ORS. AND K.P. PURUSHOTHAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the construction put up unauthorisedly in the plaint schedule property, premises No. 124/125, Sami Naicken Street, Chintadripet, Madras, and to level the ground restoring it to its original condition and also for directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, they came to know about two months prior to the filing of the suit that the defendant had started putting up new construction in the open space reserved by the plaintiffs for putting up shops. This act of the defendant, according to the plaintiffs was unauthorised and illegal on his part, and he has no right or authority to put up construction in the open space reserved by the plaintiffs for constructing a market. The defendant, inter alia,, contended that according to the tenancy created in the year 1926 he has put up structures and constructed buildings to suit his purposes in the portion allotted to him and that he never put up any construction in the open space as alleged by the plaintiffs. According to him, the open space is in the same state and condition in which it was in the year 1926 when the premises in old and dilapidated condition was leased to him. The construction made by him in the end of 1963 and completed in April, 1964 was by way of reconstruction of the tiled portion into a terraced one for providing additional accommodation for the classes of the "C.V.S. Higher Elementary School" from standard VI to standard VIII. In any event, the defendant contended, the open space has been included in the tenancy right given to-him and as such, the plaintiffs cannot obstruct him from putting up any construction thereon. The defendant also contended that he never set up any adverse or hostile title to the suit property, but, on the other hand, it has been admitted and recognised by the plaintiffs that the open space forms part of, and is included in, the tenancy of the defendant. On these contentions, the defendant prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

(2.) The trial Court, though on an interpretation of Exhibit A-1 held that the portion measuring 997.5/8 square feet, which is the subject-matter of the suit, was excluded in the lease granted to the defendant, found on the subsequent resolution Exhibit A-3, that it can be construed that the said portion was also let out to the defendant. From Exhibit A-6 dated 10th February, 1964 it also presumed that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire premises as a lessee from 5th July, 1931. On this interpretation and presumption, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The Lower Appellate Court after elaborately discussing the evidence on record and also interpreting Exhibit A-1 and A-3 came to the conclusion that the letter of the defendant mentioned in Exhibit A-3 in a way makes it clear that the plaintiffs leased out the premises as per the resolution Exhibit A-1 reserving the front portion for themselves and that the said lease was only for five years. The Lower Appellate Court also observed that if really in 1927 the entire premises was leased out to the defendant by the plaintiffs without reserving the front portion therein for themselves, there was no need for the defendant to make a request in the letter dated 22nd May, 1931 to lease out the whole premises at the rate of Rs. 11 per month and that the proposal to pay Re. 1 more per month as per the said letter mentioned in Exhibit A-3 is also in consonance with what was leased out in 1927 was not the entire premises but only the portion excluding the front portion measuring 997.5/8 square feet. In the result, the Lower Appellate Court found that the front portion measuring 997.5/8 square feet in the suit property, was not leased by the plaintiffs to the defendant and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs of mandatory injunctions and recovery of vacant possession of the suit land. Thus, the Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by that decision, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

(3.) I have been taken through Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4. From a reasoning of Exhibit A-3, which contains resolution No. 43 it is evident that the extension of lease was sanctioned only to the extent of the original lease under Exhibit A-1 of the year 1927 for a further period of five years and it cannot be said or interpreted that as per the said resolution the plaintiffs agreed to lease out the entire premises at the rate offered by the defendant as per the letter dated 22nd May, 1931. The Lower Appellate Court observed that the plaintiffs cannot be said to have kept quiet, acquiesced or stood by when the defendant put up construction on the suit property. During 1964 the plaintiffs issued a notice to the defendant objecting to the unauthorised construction by the defendant in the open space which is the subject-matter of the suit. As regards the user of the open space by the students of the institution, the Lower Appellate Court properly discussed that aspect and held that such user, if any, would not in any way probabilise that the suit front portion was also leased out to the defendant. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Lower Appellate Court.