M RAMAN PILLAI Vs. K I GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit brought for recovery of possession of a property leased by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant for the purpose of carrying on a petrol trade. The 1st defendant, under some arrangement with the 2nd defendant, Messrs. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company, had installed certain constructions in the schedule property viz.,

(2.) Counsel for the appellant contended that the items mentioned above all belonged to the 2nd defendant, and under some arrangement for agency with the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant had installed the constructions on the land which had been leased. This seems to make little difference. The 'Section only requires that the lessee should have constructed the buildings. Whether he did so by 1eave and license or with permission of some third party, or with the materials of the third party seem to make little difference. In this case, the 1st defendant under some arrangement with the 2nd defendant had installed the structures. That satisfies the requirement of 'construction' within the meaning of the Section; the rest is a matter inter se between the 1st and 2nd defendants.

(3.) It was then contended that the structures above referred to would not be 'buildings' within the meaning of the Section. The meaning of the term 'buildings' has been expounded in the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Venkat Rao ( AIR 1966 SC 991 ). It was observed: --