The decision of the trial Court was affirmed in appeal and the High Court upheld the appellate order.
The trial Court took up both the proceedings together and dismissed plaintiffs application for a direction for sale of the property to them but granted injunction against unauthorised interference by the defendants with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the property until they were evicted in due companyrse of law.
The plaintiffs took lease of the entire property in 1936.
Plaintiffs are appellants in this Court.
The defendants 1 3 started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and negotiated with defendant 4 for alienating the property.
Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and defendant 3 is the widow of one Sundaraswamy Chettiar who owned the disputed properly which companysisted of a small building and a large open space abutting behind.
In June 1975 the State Government extended the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1922 to the City limits of Erode.
This companystruction, as number companyceded, belongs to defendants 1 3.
That led to the institution of the suit.
Initially the monthly rent was Rs.
Abutting this road there is a standing structure 84 long west to east and 28 wide south to numberth.
Strong reliance was also placed on the description in the Schedule of an existing companypound wall allround.
Plaintiffs came to Court pleading that the lease was initially of a vacant site and their purpose was to put up suitable structures for running a rice and an oil mill.
Under the Tamil Nadu Act referred to above, protection has been extended to tenants who have raised their own companystructions on leased property and under Section 3 a tenant becomes entitled to be paid as companypensation the value of any building may have been erected by him on ejectment.
Defendants took the stand that the subject matter of lease was a building with its appertaining vacant land and heavily relied on the description of the lease hold as a building and the abutting vacant land.
This property came to be given two separate municipal door numbers, initially being 27 and 28, and later being 111 and 112.
The lease was on annual basis but there was numberprovision for renewal.
Very valuable structures have been put by the plaintiffs to the knowledge of defendants 1 3 and plaintiffs have been carrying on their business in the mills set up by them.
25/ but with improvements being made by the plaintiffs and rent rising up in the locality there has been escalation in the monthly rent.
Challenge herein is to the affirming revisional order of the Madras High Court upholding the companycurrent decisions of the Courts below dismissing plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction against the first three defendants respondents from alienating the disputed property and restraining all the respondents from interfering with plaintiffs possession.
Plaintiffs are a registered firm and carry on the business of running a rice mill as also an oil mill at Erode in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Ranganath Misra, J. This appeal is by special leave.
