B DEVENDRAKUMAR Vs. R RANGANATHAN DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S. No. 172 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Kodaikanal, (renumbered as O.S. No. 928 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul) who is also the defendant in O.S. No. 952 of 1993 on the file of the same Court, is the appellant in both these Second Appeals. Parties herein will be referred to according to their respective rank in O.S. No. 952 of 1993, which is a suit for possession.

(2.) NECESSARY facts for disposal of Second Appeals, could be summarised thus: As per Ex.A. 27 dated 21.3.1993, an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant, the interpretation of which is the issue in the Second Appeal. According to the plaintiff, it is only a licence arrangement, permitting the defendant to make use of the property for the conduct of restaurant for a period of six months. According to the plaintiff, only a permission was granted and there is no transfer of interest or lease arrangement between the parties. On the expiry of the term of six months, plaintiff demanded vacant possession and asked the defendant to vacate. It is also the case of the plaintiff that during the pendency of six months, the defendant attempted to put up permanent structures, for which permission was sought from the plaintiff, which was not granted. But, subsequently, the defendant attempted to put up new construction, alleging that the arrangement dated 21.3.1993 is a lease arrangement and they are entitled to put up such constructions. The suit was, therefore, laid for possession and also directing the defendant to remove the temporary sheds put up by him. Plaintiff also claimed mesne profits from 1.10.1993 at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month and future profits also at the same rate till the defendant vacates the property.

(3.) IN the suit for injunction filed by the appellant, he is not making any reference to Ex.A. 27 agreement dated 21.3.1993. IN the cause action paragraph, he has said that he became a tenant on 1.4.1993 and on 1.10.1993, when the defendant sent a warning notice, asking him to vacate. How he came into occupation of the land and what are the terms of that arrangement is not disclosed. IN the plaint, he only says that he is a lawful tenant and that he is running a Hotel by name "Arya Bhavan by Hills" in his constructed superstructure.