S RAMANI Vs. MANAGING TRUSTEE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. THE appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction, restraining the respondent from resorting to any unlawful acts to evict them from the suit property.

(2.) THE case of the appellants/plaintiffs was that one Mrs.Perundevi, was the tenant of the suit property under the respondent/defendant. THE first plaintiff is the daughter of the said Mrs.Perundevi and the second plaintiff is her son-in-law and they both were living along with Mrs.Perundevi, till her life time and after the death of Mrs.Perundevi also, the appellants/plaintiffs continued to live in the suit property as tenants. As the respondent refused to receive the rent from the appellants/plaintiffs and also attempted to demolish the old building for the purpose of constructing a new building, the suit was filed for the relief stated above.

(3.) THE following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admitting the Second Appeal:- i) Whether after the death of first appellant's grandfather Thiru.Kanikannan, the tenancy rights in respect of the suit property devolved and inherited by/upon his legal heir/his wife Tmt.Perundevi and subsequent to her death the tenancy rights devolved upon the first appellant, who is daughter, in the absence of valid attornment of tenancy" ii) Whether in the absence of any valid termination of tenancy by the respondent-trust against the appellants, the findings of the Courts below declaring the appellants as trespassers is correct or valid" iii) Whether the appellants are tenants and lawful occupier, who are paying the monthly rent to the respondent-trust, entitled to protect their possession from illegal interference/demolition from the hands of the respondent-trust, in the absence of any valid demolition order from the Corporation of Chennai"