(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. Challenge in the Second Appeal by the plaintiffs is against the reversal of decree of the trial court by the first appellant court in allowing A.S.No.27 of 2005 and dismissing the suit in O.S.No.1403 of 1994.
(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule mentioned property. It originally belonged to the plaintiffs' father one Subramania Mudaliar. The said Subramania Mudaliar had entered into a registered lease agreement with one Yusuf Khan, the father of the defendants 1 to 3. This agreement was entered into on 29/3/1942. On the expiry of the said lease, Kanakasabapathy Mudaliar Son of Subramania Mudaliar entered into an other lease deed with Rajunnisa wife of Yusuf Khan on 15/5/1961. Alleging that Rajunnisa has sub-let the property to K.Anbazhagan for running a Metal Store under the name and style of M/s.Visalakshi Metal Store and also alleging that Rajunnisa was pulling down the existing superstructure and attempting to construct a new one, the present suit had been filed.
(3.) A written statement was presented by Rajunnisa, the 1st defendant admitting to the registered lease deed dtd. 15/5/1961. According to the written statement, the lease deed permits putting up a superstructure and, therefore, the 1st defendant pleaded that putting up an additional construction is not barred. She would state that the allegations that she defaulted in payment of rent is false and that she is a tenant holding over, as she had been continuing in possession of the property after the expiry of the lease. She would claim that she is entitled to the benefits of Sec. 9 of The Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act. She challenged the plaintiffs to file the suit for ejectment and denied the sub-tenancy. Pending suit, original plaintiff - S.Krishnasaml and the 1st defendant - Rajunnisa passed away. Their legal representatives were brought on record as 2 to 4 plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 respectively.