03.08.1990 marked as Ex.A3, it is found that the maintenance of the tenements should be the responsibility of the allottees and therefore the allottees together should ensure that the tenements are maintained as per the rules. In fact, the Chief Engineer, Slum Clearance Board has sent a communication dated 12.04.1993 to the Chairman, Valluvar Residents Welfare Association marked as Ex.A2, whereunder also it has been mentioned that all the 32 occupants of the tenements have 1/32 share of individual land in the scheme and the open space left is for the common use of all the residents and not for any individual ownership and none of the occupants are permitted to build any temporary and permanent structures in the open space as per the development control rules of MMD. It is thus found that other than the tenements allotted to each allottee, they are not entitled to put up any construction either temporary or permanent in the open space left for the common enjoyment of all the allottees and in such view of the matter, if any such allottee, contravenes the abovessaid direction or rule and put up any unauthorised construction in the open space meant for the common usage of all the allottees and as the allottees together are directed to maintain the tenements as per the G.O marked as Ex.A3 as above referred to, in such view of the matter, the plaintiff being one of the allottees, accordingly had come forward with the suit in the representative capacity complaining that the defendants had encroached into the common space and put up certain constructions there on and resultantly the same had hindered or prevented their enjoyment of the common space and hence putforth that the appropriate reliefs have been claimed against the defendants. In this connection, as rightly found by the Courts below, the plaintiff and his witnesses examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 have tendered clear evidence that the defendants had encroached into the common space and put up the construction and thereby caused hindrance, inconvenience to them in the enjoyment of their respective tenements. Furthermore, as rightly found by the Courts below, the defendants in their written pleas have not in specific denied that they had not put up the construction in the open space and on the other hand, the argument has been putforth by the defendants that the front space and the rear space available in front and rear portion of the tenements is meant for the use and enjoyment of the ground floor and first floor occupants respectively. However no such order or G.O had been projected by the defendants to establish that the front space and the rear space of the tenements are to be enjoyed as putforth by them and in such view of the matter, it is found that the defendants with a view to conceal or give a justification for the encroachment committed by them in the open space have come forward with the new theory without any proof or materials pointing to the acceptability of the same. Thus it is found that the defendants had committed encroachment in the open space and put up certain constructions which had caused
