Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"5. Mr. M.K. Kabir, learned counsel for the respondent in the first place contended that the petitioner leased out only the site for the specific purpose of a care service station to one Nataraja Iyer. Subsequently, the said Nataraja Iyer, assigned the tenancy agreement in favour of Thirunaffukkarasu, who at his cost put up some asbestos sheet sheds and a compound wall, in the petition mentioned premises and from Thirunavukkarasu, the respondents have purchased the asbestos sheet sheds and the compound wall. Inasmuch as the said asbestos sheet sheds and the compound wall put up in the petition mentioned property do not belong to the petitioner, the petition for eviction filed under the provisions of the Act is not maintainable. The learned counsel further contended that as the respondents have become the owners of the asbestos sheet sheds and compound wall put up in the petition mentioned property, the petitioner cannot file a petition for eviction seeking for recovery of vacant possession of the site after the removal of the asbestos sheet sheds and the compound wall. The petition for eviction filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act will be maintainable, if, what was let out to the respondents by the petitioner under the tenancy Agreement, Ex.A1 is a building within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the question we have to examine in this case is, whether the property let out by the petitioner to the respondents is a building within the meaning of Sec. 2 (2) of the Act. The backdrop of law may be briefly examined before going into the factual details. Section 2 (2) of the Act defines a building......