JAGADAMBAL Vs. T E VARADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit O.S.No.789 of 1979, and the civil revision petition arises out of I.A.No.1367 of 1980 in that suit.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the landlord for eviction of the first defendant-tenant and also the second defendant-subtenant from the suit premises, and also for damages for use and occupation of the premises after the termination of tenancy. THE first defendant-tenant filed I.A.No.1367 of 1980 contending that he has put up the superstructure in the plaintiffs land and therefore under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, he is entitled to purchase the land for the value to be fixed by the court. This application was resisted by the plaintiffs contending inter alia that the landlord let out to the first defendant the land together with the building thereon and therefore no question of claiming benefit by the first defendant under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act arises.

(3.) THE first point is devoid of any merit because the schedule of property which has been leased out under Ex.A-1 in clear and unequivocal terms states that only the vacant site has been leased out. Correctly the courts below have found that only the vacant site has been leased out and the superstructure has been put by the first defendant-tenant.