R SUNDARA NAICKER Vs. S CHINNAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned orders, against which, the plaintiff preferred these appeals are dated 12. 1. 1995 passed by the Seventh Assistant judge, City Civil Court , chennai in I. A. Nos. 956 of 1992, 4088 and 4087 of 1991 in O. S. No. 10158 of 1990. By the said orders, it was found that the defendants were requiring a minimum of 264 sq. ft of land and that they are entitled to purchase the same on availing the benefit of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff landlord preferred these appeals.

(2.) THE suit was initially filed against the respondents herein for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. Although the copy of the plaint available on record does not show the plaint description of property, we are able to find from the applications under Section 9 of the said Act that it measures 264 sq. ft with superstructure and with thatched hut in R. S. No. 1458/1 (old S. F. No. 2001) in thousand Lights, Chennai.

(3.) IT is true that the party in possession of a bunk shop may not ground it to acquire the land under the above provision. But, it is not the case of the appellant herein/plaintiff that what the respondents had was only a bunk shop not embedded to earth. In fact, the counter on this aspect is silent, when in the said applications it was emphatically stated that there was a thatched hut put up in the suit property by the respondents herein/defendants. Thatched hut means roof surfacing top of the poles embedded to earth. This point also is not in favour of the appellant.