rightly found that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief as prayed for and decreed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court placing reliance on some of the clauses in Ex.A.1 lease agreement, taking note of the assessments made in the name of the defendant/landlord, held that the relief of declaration cannot be granted to the plaintiffs as prayed for. Admittedly, the defendant is the owner of the property, namely, the land that was originally leased out to the plaintiff. Under Ex.A.1- lease agreement, the plaintiffs were permitted to put up a superstructure at their costs. No doubt, the superstructure has been assessed in the name of the defendant. However, the defendant is estopped from claiming ownership rights over the mechanic shed put up by the plaintiffs in the light of the specific averments in Ex.A.1 lease agreement which are also reiterated in the written statement filed by the defendant. However, at the same time, it is to be clarified that the plaintiffs are only tenants who have put up the superstructure at their costs. Having covenanted and specifically agreed to remove the superstructure as and when they vacates, the plaintiffs cannot claim any permanent rights of ownership over the superstructure and under the guise of the same, continue to stay in the suit property, despite eviction proceedings initiated by the defendant, landlord. However, in the present case, the eviction proceedings are pending before the Small Causes Court along
