JUDGMENT M. M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellant is the second defendant in O.S 242 of 1980 of the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad Respondents 1 to 3 (plaintiffs) filed the suit for a prohibitory in junction restraining the defendants from committing any acts of waste in the property or erecting any shed thereon and also for a mandatory injunction directing them to remove the shed constructed unauthorisedly in the property just north of the building in the possession of the appellant as a tenant. The suit was decreed by the Munsiff and the appellant and the 4th respondent (first defendant) are restrained by a permanent injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property except the building in which they are residing. Mandatory injunction was granted directing the appellant and the 4th respondent to remove the B schedule shed. If they fail to do so, respondents are given the liberty to remove the same. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court are confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Trichur in A. S.14 of 1986. 2. The Trial Court as wall as the lower appellate Court held that the appellant's possession can only be pursuant to Ext. A-1 rent deed. The claim of kudikidappu was found against by both the Courts. S. A. 938 of 1989 filed by the appellant along with defendants 7 and 8 in O. S.223 of 1980 was dismissed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even according to the respondents, appellant is in possession of the building as a tenant and if that be so, he has every right to have the use and occupation of the appurtenant site. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the unauthorised construction of the structure has blocked the entry to the compound of the respondents and on that sole score the unauthorised construction will have to be removed. Appellant's case is that he has put up a shed for keeping his bullocks and cart. He admitted that he is running a tea shop in the shed. As Ext. A-1 real deed discloses that only the building alone was let out and as it specifically shows that the appellant or the first defendant cannot have any legal right to construct any additional structure in the appurtenant site. Courts below were perfectly justified in decreeing the suit. As Ext. A-1 real deed discloses that only the building alone was let out and as it specifically shows that the appellant or the first defendant cannot have any legal right to construct any additional structure in the appurtenant site. Courts below were perfectly justified in decreeing the suit. The commissioner's report shows that the shed blocks the entry to the respondents' property and that it was recently constructed, 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the tenant of a building on the pretext of using the appurtenant site can construct any additional structure without the permission of the landlord. S.108(p) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits a lessee from erecting any permanent structure in the leasehold property except for agricultural purposes without the lessor a consent. That apart, appellant whose possession over the building can be traced only to Ext. A-1 rent deed cannot travel beyond the area to which he is given the right of occupation and effect any construction in the appurtenant site. In this case, construction of the unauthorised structure has blocked the entry to the respondents' compound and for that reason also the action of the appellant is without any justification. There is no evidence as all that the shed was constructed by the appellant with the permission of the respondents. As the appellant is admittedly in possession of the building on the strength of Ext. A-1 rent deed, he cannot encroach upon the appurtenant site and put up any additional structure. 5. Appellant's counsel relied on Padmanabha Shenoy v. Moideen ( 1955 KLT 390 ) and urged that the courtyard is part of the premises of the building in the possession of the appellant and the construction made thereon cannot be constituted as an act of trespass. In the above case, a temporary shed in the courtyard for keeping materials used by the lessee for his business was constructed. The above decision has no application to the facts of the case in hand as the appellant got possession of the building only for residential purpose. Moreover, the unauthorised construction is highly injurious to the respondents as it blocked the very entry to their compound. The above decision has no application to the facts of the case in hand as the appellant got possession of the building only for residential purpose. Moreover, the unauthorised construction is highly injurious to the respondents as it blocked the very entry to their compound. It is not possible to hold that the additional structure constructed has not injuriously affected or caused any damage to the respondents in the matter of enjoyment of their property which it beyond the tenanted premises and in which the appellant has no vestige of right. 6. Contention of the appellant that he could be evicted only under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 as that Act has been extended to the area in question and so he can continue to be in possession of the shed constructed by him in the appurtenant site till he is evicted from the premises by taking recourse to the above Act is clearly untenable. A lessee cannot be allowed to plead that he would remove the unauthorised construction at the end of the lessee or when he is evicted in accordance with law. A tenant who has effected unauthorised construction cannot advance a contention that so long as he has not been evicted from the tenanted premises he can continue to occupy the unauthorised structure. There cannot be any doubt at all that the respondents are entitled to get a mandatory injunction to remove the additional structure. 7. Contention of the appellant that the Courts below should not have relied on Ext. A-1 as it is not registered is also not tenable. As the lease is not for any term exceeding one year, no registration was necessary in view of S.107 of the Transfer of Properly Act Appellant contended that Ext. A-1 rent deed was executed only by the lessee and as it is not registered it should not have been acted upon by the Courts below. As the lease is not for any term exceeding one year, no registration was necessary in view of S.107 of the Transfer of Properly Act Appellant contended that Ext. A-1 rent deed was executed only by the lessee and as it is not registered it should not have been acted upon by the Courts below. In Sreedharan v. Narayanana Bhakthan (1975 KLT 128) this Court held that document relating to sales, leases and mortgages come into existence only after agreements are arrived at between the parties to these transactions, that the lessor and lessee generally agree to the terms of the tenancy before hand and then reduce to writing what has been agreed upon/ and that in such cases oral agreement of lease can be spelt out of the rent deed executed by the lessee and there can be no bar for a court from looking into such a document. In that view of the matter, contention of the appellant that Ext. A-1 should have been ignored by the Courts below is without any merit. The Second Appeal is devoid of any merit. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are confirmed. Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.