V.K. BHEEMARAJA Vs. THE DEITY OF MAYURANATHASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in the original suit is the appellant in this second appeal.

(2.) THE suit property is an extent of 16 cents of land comprised in Survey No.276 A/1 in Rajapalayam Town, Virudhunagar District. The respondent Devasthanam is the owner of the said property. After getting necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai in his proceedings Oo.Mu.20556/78 dated 17.10.1978, the said property was leased out as a vacant site to the appellant herein/defendant for a period of one year starting from 01.07.1978 to 30.06.1979. The sanction order of the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai has been marked as Ex.A -1. The rent for the said period was fixed at Rs.720/ -. In the above said order according sanction for the lease to be granted in favour of the appellant herein/defendant, three conditions were incorporated, out of which, the third condition is to the effect that no superstructure of permanent in nature should be erected in the above said property by the lessee. Pursuant to the above said order, lease deeds and renewal lease deeds happened to be executed from time to time till the dispute arose in the month of January 1991. Two of such documents are Exs.A -2 and A -3. Complaining that the appellant/defendant was making arrangements to put up permanent structures violating the above said condition on which the lease was granted, the present suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer, for permanent injunction not to put up any superstructure of permanent in nature and for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the superstructures put up by the appellant/defendant.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant by filing a written statement, denying the allegations that there was an attempt made by him to put up any new superstructure and contending that all the superstructures had been put up even ten years prior to the date of institution of the suit and that no new superstructure was sought to be put up. The further contention raised on behalf of the defendant was that since the lease was in respect of a vacant site, the appellant/defendant was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of City Tenants Protection Act, 1921; that the nature of the building put up by the appellant/defendant was irrelevant, in view of the condition found in Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that in the event of termination of lease, the lessee shall have a right to remove the structures put up by him or the superstructures also will vest with the landlord in case the lessee chooses to surrender possession along with the superstructure without removing the same.