Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 500 (MAD)

R. D. Venkatesan v. J. Dhanasekaran & Another

2009-02-10

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Inveighing the order dated 110. 2007, passed by the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.16271 of 2007 in O.S.No.3934 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A resume of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.3934 of 2007 seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, servants, hirelings etc., claiming under or through them, from trespassing, causing nuisance and in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession, enjoyment and development of the suit property bearing New door No.61, Old door No.53, V.V.Koil Street, Choolai, Chennai 600 112, except the rented portions under the occupation of the defendants; (ii) for the cost of the suit and (iii) for further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No16271 of 2007 was filed by the defendants seeking injunction so as to protect the area under the possession of the defendants as tenants. The lower Court ordered status quo. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the scope of the suit filed by the plaintiff is to obtain injunction as against the defendants who are tenants in a portion of the building and that they should not trespass into the remaining portion of the building over which the plaintiff acquired right and title; however the prayer in the I.A.No.16271 of 2007 by the defendants is to the effect that their tenanted premises should not be interfered with by the landlord; such a prayer is untenable in view of the fact that the suit is not related to the tenanted premises, but only in respect of the remaining portion of the building excluding the tenanted premises. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants would highlight and spotlight, detail and delineate, express and expatiate the woes suffered by the tenants at the hands of the plaintiff. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants would highlight and spotlight, detail and delineate, express and expatiate the woes suffered by the tenants at the hands of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendants also would point out that atrocities have been committed as against the defendants tenants which propelled and impelled the defendants to file such an application and in that connection alone the lower Court passed such an order appropriately and appositely warranting no interference by this Court. 6. At this juncture, I would like to observe that the subject matter involved in the suit is only the portion of the building other than the portion under the occupation of the defendants. Hence in this connection I would like to extract here under the prayer in the plaint as well as the schedule of the property. PRAYER IN THE PLAINT: "(i) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, servants, hirelings etc., claiming under or through them, from trespassing, causing nuisance and in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession, enjoyment and development of the suit property bearing New door No.61, Old door No.53, V.V.Koil Street, Choolai, Chennai 600 112, except the rented portions under the occupation of the defendants;" (emphasis supplied) SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY: "All that piece and parcel of land with building situated at Old door No.53, New No.61, Vijaya Vigneshwara Koil St., Choolai, Chennai 112, Collector Certificate No.1024, Old Survey No.2116, Re survey No.1965/1 as per patta No.1965/2, Purasawakkam Village, Perambur-Purasawakkam Tk., within the Chennai Corporation limit, and bounded on the four sides as follows:- North by : Mr.Radhakrishan Naickers property South by : V.V.Koil St., East by : Mrs.Bhakiammals House West by : Astabujam lane measuring to an extent of 1833 sq.ft. of land with building." The aforesaid underlined portion of the prayer if read along with the schedule of the property, it is at once clear that the suit is not in respect of the tenanted premises, but only in respect of the rest of the portions of the building. Hence in such a case, I am at a loss to understand as to how the defendants would be justified in filing an I.A. to protect their possession in respect of the tenanted premises which is not the subject matter of the suit itself. 7. Hence in such a case, I am at a loss to understand as to how the defendants would be justified in filing an I.A. to protect their possession in respect of the tenanted premises which is not the subject matter of the suit itself. 7. It is a trite proposition of law that a defendant also can file I.A. and seek interim orders, provided the injunction sought should be having nexus with the subject matter of the suit and not in respect of the premises or area which is not the subject matter of the suit. As such, the very I.A. itself is not tenable. 8. The learned counsel for the defendants would echo the cre de coeur feelings of the defendants to the effect that pending RCOP proceedings and pending the said suit, the plaintiff is taking aggressive steps to demolish a portion of the tenanted premises by doing all sorts of atrocities, for which the learned counsel for the plaintiff would make a supine submission to the effect that the plaintiff having chosen to candidly and categorically admit that the defendants are in occupation of the three shops, there would be no rhyme or reason on the part of the plaintiff in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of those shops until they are evicted in accordance with law. 9. According to the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants they are interested in safeguarding their tenanted premises only and not trespassing into the remaining part of the building. As such, the submissions made by the respective Advocates should be adhered to by the respective parties in strictosenso. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.