(1) THE respondents filed OS No. 2073 of 1971 in the court of the Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras for ejectment of the appellants from the demised site. The plea set up by the appellants by way of defence, was that in the year 1953, the site was taken on lease for putting up a superstructure thereon and accordingly, superstructure was upon it at a cost of Rs. 6,000.00, although the appellants have been running there, a fuel depot. Hence, they were entitled to the protection of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, The first two courts although found concurrently that the appellants had taken the lease of the site to put up a superstructure thereon, the High court relying upon the agreement dated 3/10/1966 in which it was specifically admitted that only open site was taken on lease. From that, the High court concluded that if there exists any superstructure even as early as 1966, it should have found a place in the agreement Ex. A-l. In absence thereof, it concluded, that what was leased out, was an open site. Under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could be adduced contrary to the recitals in the written document. Lease being a written document where it was specifically mentioned that the site was taken on lease, it is no longer permissible to adduce oral evidence to show that it was site with a superstructure that was taken on lease. That apart what was relied upon by the appellants, was Ex. B-3 series which would show that appellants had paid taxes to the Municipal Corporation. That would not advance the case of the appellants. The best evidence would have been the municipal licence taken from the Municipal Corporation for construction of the superstructure, said to have been put up by the appellants. That was not the case set up either in the pleading or evidence adduced in that behalf. May be that fuel depot could be run in an open space even without any superstructure or may be with a thatched shed for purpose of shelter for carrying out fuel business, that would not necessarily constitute to be constructing a building after the lease of the open site was obtained. May be that fuel depot could be run in an open space even without any superstructure or may be with a thatched shed for purpose of shelter for carrying out fuel business, that would not necessarily constitute to be constructing a building after the lease of the open site was obtained. Under these circumstances, the High court was right in its conclusion that there was no proof of lease of open site taken by the appellants with authority to construct superstructure. Accordingly, we do not find any error of law in the judgment of the High court warranting interference. The appeal is dismissed. However, one years time is granted to the appellants to vacate the premises upon filing the usual undertaking within six weeks from today. No costs.