THOMAS Vs. MORAM MAR BASELIOUS OUGEN I CATHOLICS METROPOLITAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in a suit for arrears of rent, for eviction and recovery of damages as well as for an injunction restraining the first defendant from constructing any unauthorised structures in the leased property is the appellant. The plaint schedule property and the workshop building therein belong to the plaintiff, Catholics and Metropolitan, Malankara Church. The workshop was entrusted on lease to the first defendant on 1-2-1969 on a monthly rent of Rs. 85/-The first defendant was conducting a Motor-workshop therein. A bus K. L. K. 7475 belonging to the second defendant was brought to the workshop on 5-7-1969 for repairs. According to the plaintiff, the brake and engine of the vehicle were in disorder which fact was well known to the defendants 1 and 2 and their servants. The plaintiff would allege that without taking necessary precautions, care or caution the vehicle when moved in the premises went out of control and hit against the workshop building. The building was completely destroyed. The plaintiff seeks to make liable defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally for the damages caused to the plaintiff by the alleged carelessness and negligence on their part and on the part of their servants. Though the plaintiff would state that he spent more than Rs. 5000/ for the reconstruction of the building and that he has suffered a loss to that extent, he limits his claim to Rs. 4000/-. He sent a registered notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 14-7-1969. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the receipt of the notice the first defendant has put up a shed without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore he is entitled to get it demolished. The plaintiff has also got a case that the first defendant had defaulted payment of rent from August 1969 and therefore he had claimed arrears of rent together with 6 per cent interest He further claimed a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from constructing new buildings and also claimed damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. These reliefs are besides the claim for damages for Rs. 4000/-.

(2.) In resisting the suit the first defendant had contended that there was no total destruction of the building. He had also denied the construction of any unauthorised structure. What he did was only repair of the roof of the building. The bus was alleged to have been driven by the second defendant's employee at the time the accident happened and not by the first defendant or his employees. The first defendant also denied the forfeiture or termination of the lease as set up by the plaintiff. The construction effected after the accident is alleged to be with the consent of the plaintiff.

(3.) In the written statement, the second defendant had contended that the accident occurred on account of the neglience of the first defendant's employees and that in any event the plaintiff is entitled to damages only to the extent of Rs. 1500/-. He had also contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action and that the suit was instituted without any bona fides and only to evict the first defendant from the premises.