LODD BALAMUKUNDAS Vs. K KOTHANDAPANI
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE first defendant in O. S. No. 3295 of 1962 on the file of the VIII Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant before this court. That suit was instituted by the first respondent herein under the following circumstances. The suit property belonged to one Lodd Mohanakrishna and the first respondent herein took the same on lease from him. In a partition entered into in the family the suit property was allotted to the appellant herein and after such allotment, the first respondent was paying rent to the appellant, herein. One of the clauses in the lease deed executed by the first respondent in favour of Lodd Mohanakrishna provided that if there had been default on the part of the tenant to pay the rent, the landlord was entitled to determine the tenancy and re-enter on the demised premises. Alleging that the first respondent herein had defaulted in the payment of rent, on 2-11-1962, the appellant issued notice terminating the tenancy and proposing to exercise his rights to re-enter upon the property in terms of the lease deed. Thereupon, the appellant appears to have directly entered into tenancy arrangement with the sub-tenants who were let into possession by the first respondent herein. It was under these circumstances that the first respondent instituted the suit praying for an injunction restraining the appellant herein, his agents, employees or workmen from taking possession of the suit property or in any other manner interfering with the possession of the plaintiff (the first respondent herein) to the suit property except by due process of law. The cause of action and the ground for the relief asked for, as stated in the plaint, was that what was originally leased out was only a vacant piece of land and the first respondent herein had acquired indefeasible interest in the suit property as provided for in the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and, in any event, the first respondent contended that the appellant had no manner of right to dispossess the plaintiff, the first respondent, or to disturb the possession of the first respondent without resort to court and by due process of law.
(2.) THE suit was resisted by the appellant herein on several grounds, one of them being that what was leased out to the first respondent was not a vacant site and all the superstructures standing on the land belonged to the appellant herein and the first respondent himself was not in possession of any part of the property and the entire demised premises had been sub-let by the first respondent to the various sub-tenants from whom the appellant had obtained independant tenancy agreements.
(3.) THE learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras by judgment and decree dated 25th September, 1965, dismissed the suit. As against this judgment and decree, the first respondent herein preferred an appeal to the learned principal Judge, City Civil Court Madras, who on 29th November, 1966, allowed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal by the first defendant in the suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.