JUDGMENT : A. Badharudeen, J. A.S.No.138/1999 has been filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short) by the first defendant in O.S.No.174/1992 on the files of the Sub Court, Cherthala, challenging decree and judgment therein dated 07.03.1998. The respondents in this appeal are plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. 2. A.S.No.898/1998 is at the instance of the plaintiff in the above suit, challenging the same decree and judgment wherein the defendants are the respondents. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals and the contesting respondents. Perused the verdict under challenge and the trial court records. 4. The parties in these appeals shall be referred as 'plaintiff', 1st defendant', 2nd defendant' and 'defendants' with reference to their status before the trial court for easy reference. 5. The short facts: The plaintiff filed this suit for damages and mandatory injunction on the allegation that while he was occupying a shop room in Ward No.VI of Ezhupunna Panchayath, owned by Ezhupunna Panchayath, as a tenant, on the strength of tenancy arrangement started on 01.04.1986, on 02.04.1992, the 2nd defendant, as per the decision of the 1st defendant, forcefully and illegally evicted the plaintiff from the shop room and also taken away and destroyed the business articles kept at the shop. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for the value of the said articles and Rs.9,050/- towards loss of profit, Rs.150/- towards notice charge and Rs.50/- per day till re-possession of the shop room. 6. 1st and 2nd defendants jointly filed written statement contending that the 1st defendant decided not to renew the period of lease of the plaintiff, which expired on 31.03.1992. The decision was taken on 18.03.1992. The decision of the committee was known to the plaintiff also. That apart, notice of the decision dated 18.03.1992 also was attempted to be served to the plaintiff, but he refused to accept the notice and the said notice was effected by affixture on 21.03.92. There was no contract entered between the plaintiff and the defendants to give the shop room at an enhanced rate of rent for the period 1992-93. That apart, notice of the decision dated 18.03.1992 also was attempted to be served to the plaintiff, but he refused to accept the notice and the said notice was effected by affixture on 21.03.92. There was no contract entered between the plaintiff and the defendants to give the shop room at an enhanced rate of rent for the period 1992-93. Another contention is that again notice was issued to the plaintiff on 01.04.1992 intimating him that he would be removed from the room unless he failed to show cause within 24 hours and the said notice also was refused by the plaintiff. It was affixed on the door of the shop room in question. Therefore, following procedure, the Panchayat took possession of the shop room, and the action of the Panchayath is not illegal or against the provisions of any act or rules. The 2nd defendant did not demand the plaintiff to pay any illegal gratification. The defendants are not liable for any of the damages claimed in the suit. The goods taken from the shop room are in the safe custody of the 1st defendant – Panchayath. That apart, the plaintiff filed a frivolous suit for injunction before the Munsiff’s Court, Cherthala. An ex parte order of temporary injunction was obtained though the interim order was subsequently vacated. The said order became final and therefore, the present suit is barred by res judicata. After evicting the plaintiff from the shop room, the same was given on rent. The plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for. Hence, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit with costs. 7. The trial court raised necessary issues and tried the matter. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A21 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B12 were marked on the side of the defendants. 8. On hearing both sides and on appreciating the evidence, the trial court decreed the suit as under: “In the result, the suit is partly decreed on the following terms that the defendants do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.20,809/- (Rs. Twenty thousand Eight hundred and nine) as damages with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till realisation and with proportionate cost. Panchayat is directed to return the goods mentioned in the mahazar to the plaintiff.” 9. Twenty thousand Eight hundred and nine) as damages with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till realisation and with proportionate cost. Panchayat is directed to return the goods mentioned in the mahazar to the plaintiff.” 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as per Ext.A7 commission report, the Commissioner reported that the total value of the articles seized by the Panchayath would come to Rs.89,048/- and the Commissioner also found that the articles forcefully taken away by the defendants at the time of illegal eviction are glass, mica, plywood, etc. Therefore, the trial court ought to have granted the said amount as such, instead of granting its value to the extent of 20% alone. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that in the appeal memorandum, the plaintiff limited his claim to the tune of 50% of the value claimed in the plaint. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the plaintiff sought interference in the verdict of the trial court so as to enhance the amount of damages as claimed in the appeal memorandum. 10. Zealously opposing the contentions at the instance of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and seeking interference in the trial court verdict, the learned counsel for the 1st defendant argued that in the instant case, the plaintiff was evicted after issuance of notice and on termination of the lease arrangement. Therefore, the eviction is legal and no damages is entitled by the plaintiff. It is argued further that if at all the eviction at the instance of the defendants is found to be illegal, then also, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any damages since the defendants have been ready to return the articles at the very inception. According to him, even though the suit was filed as on 01.10.1992 and the eviction was on 02.04.1992, the plaintiff did not seek relief to get back the articles either as a main relief or as an interim relief. This is the context in which the trial court reduced the amount to 20% of the value assessed by the commissioner as per Ext.A7 commission report, coming to the tune of Rs.17,809/- along with Rs.3000/- towards loss of profit. This is the context in which the trial court reduced the amount to 20% of the value assessed by the commissioner as per Ext.A7 commission report, coming to the tune of Rs.17,809/- along with Rs.3000/- towards loss of profit. It is argued that since there is laches on the part of the plaintiff in getting back the articles seized, he is not entitled to get any amount towards damages, or in the alternative, this Court may confine the relief, as granted by the trial court, and dismiss both appeals. 11. Maneuvering the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are :- 1. Whether the trial court is right in holding that the suit is not barred by res judicata or under Order II Rule 2 of CPC or by the principle of estoppel? 2. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the eviction of the plaintiff from the shop room owned by the 1st defendant is illegal? 3. Whether the trial court is justified in granting damages by limiting the same to Rs.17,809/- in a case where the commissioner assessed the same to the tune of Rs.89,408/-? 4. Whether the decree and judgment would require interference? 5. Reliefs and costs. 12. Point No.1 : In this matter, admittedly, another suit, viz., O.S.No.349/92 was filed by the plaintiff for injunction against the Panchayat and subsequently, the said suit was not pressed and dismissed. In this context, the defendants raised contention that the suit is barred by res judicata as well as under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. The trial court addressed the said issue in paragraph No.21 and found in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the suit is not barred by the principles of res judicata or the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. It was also found by the trial court that the plaintiff is not estopped from instituting the present suit. 13. In the instant case, earlier suit as O.S.No.349/1992 was filed for injunction to restrain the Panchayat from putting strangers in the shop room where from the plaintiff was illegally evicted. Later, the room was put in possession of another tenant and at this juncture, the suit was not pressed and dismissed. In this context, the essentials to find res judicata need reference. Later, the room was put in possession of another tenant and at this juncture, the suit was not pressed and dismissed. In this context, the essentials to find res judicata need reference. The essentials are as under: (a) Parties must be the same or they are litigating under the same title in both suits: The parties in the subsequent suit and the parties in the previous suit are either same persons or they are litigating under the same title in both suits. (b) Cause of action shall be the same: The cause of action in the subsequent suit must be the cause of action in the previous suit. (c) Subject matter shall be the same: The subject matter in the subsequent suit and the previous suit must be the same. (d) There must be a final decision: The matter in issue in the previous suit must have been heard and finally decided and the said issue again to be raised in the subsequent suit. 14. Assimilating the ingredients to constitute the bar of res judicata as extracted hereinabove, in fact, in the instant case, even though the parties are same, no final decision on merits with regard to legality of eviction or claim for damages was delivered in the previous suit. Therefore, the principles of res judicata would not apply in the instant case. 15. Coming to the essentials to find the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the following must be established. (a) Same Cause of Action: The most crucial factor is that the second suit must be based on the exact same cause of action as the first suit. (b) Entitled to All Reliefs: The plaintiff must have been legally entitled to claim all the reliefs related to the cause of action in the first suit. (c) Omission without permission: The plaintiff must have omitted to claim a part of the relief in the first suit without seeking permission from the court. (d) Burden of proof: The defendant bears the burden of proving that the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 applies by demonstrating that the cause of action in both suits is the same. 16. In this case, initially a simple suit for injunction had been filed when the plaintiff apprehended induction of strangers in the shop room where from the plaintiff was evicted. 16. In this case, initially a simple suit for injunction had been filed when the plaintiff apprehended induction of strangers in the shop room where from the plaintiff was evicted. The cause of action in the previous suit is apprehension of induction of strangers and at the time of filing the previous suit (O.S.No.349/1992), the cause of action for claiming damages was not available as the same is a subsequent cause of action when the plaintiff was not given back the articles. Therefore, the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC would not apply and thus the plaintiff is not estopped from filing the present suit. Therefore, the trial court rightly found that the suit is not barred by res judicata or under Order II Rule 2 of CPC and the plaintiff is not estopped from instituting the present suit. Holding so, the said finding is upheld. 17. Point No.2: In this matter, Exts.A1 to A3 are the registered letters issued by the Panchayath to the plaintiff on 24.02.1992, 11.03.1992 and 26.03.1992. Earlier, the plaintiff was permitted to occupy and continue possession of the shop room as a tenant with effect from 01.04.1986. Later, the Panchayath committee passed a resolution allowing the 2nd defendant to take necessary action to evict the plaintiff from the building on expiry of the period of lease. According to the defendants, Ext.A1 notice was issued to the plaintiff on 31.03.1992 intimating that the plaintiff could continue the possession of the building upto midnight on 31.03.1992 and with direction to vacate the building thereafter. The said notice was served upon the plaintiff at 5 pm on 31.03.1992 by affixture. On perusal of Ext.A1, the same would depict that issuance of Ext.A1 notice was to vacate the building even without providing a breathing time. Anyhow, after issuing Ext.A1 notice at 5 pm on 31.03.1992, the defendant issued Ext.B5 notice directing the plaintiff to give vacant possession of the shop room on 01.04.1992 and subsequently, on the next day, he was forcefully evicted and the articles were removed by the Panchayat. Going by the above evidence and the evidence given by DW1 - the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff was evicted at 8.30 pm on 02.04.1992. Going by the above evidence and the evidence given by DW1 - the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff was evicted at 8.30 pm on 02.04.1992. In this connection, it is relevant to note that nobody including the Local Self Government Institutions is allowed to take law at hands and on termination of tenancy, legal procedures should be followed to evict a tenant. Any high handed activities by force to send out a tenant from the demised premises is nothing but an illegality. Be it so, without much ado, it has to be held that the eviction of the plaintiff from the shop room in the instant case is illegal. Therefore, the trial court rightly found so. 18. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the trial court disallowed the compensation claimed under the heads ‘mental pain’, ‘loss of reputation’ etc. and the learned counsel for the plaintiff not pressed for the same herein also. The relief granted by the trial court in this matter is confined to grant of Rs.17,809/- being 20% of the amount assessed by the commissioner as per Ext.A7 commission report coming to the tune of Rs.89,048/- and also Rs.3,000/- towards loss of business profit due to the illegal eviction. 19. Once it is found that the eviction is illegal and the articles belonging to the plaintiff/tenant were taken possession of by the landlord, the defendant who in fact has no legal right to possess the articles, then the landlord is answerable for the same. It is true that in the instant case, even though the suit was filed on 01.10.1992, the plaintiff also did not move in any way to get back articles seized. However, the plaintiff filed this suit claiming damages for the value of articles and accordingly, commissioner was appointed and Ext.A7 report was obtained. 20. Anyhow, as per Ext.A7, the commissioner assessed the value of goods at Rs.89,048/- and according to the commissioner, the articles are glass, mica, ply woods etc. The fact remains is that the defendants did not take any steps to return the articles to the plaintiff, so also the plaintiff. 20. Anyhow, as per Ext.A7, the commissioner assessed the value of goods at Rs.89,048/- and according to the commissioner, the articles are glass, mica, ply woods etc. The fact remains is that the defendants did not take any steps to return the articles to the plaintiff, so also the plaintiff. The trial court while considering the assessment as per Ext.A7 found that the plaintiff is entitled to get back the goods taken by the defendant and also he can claim damages of the difference between the value of the goods on the date of the suit and the value of the goods prevailing at the time of seizure. But no evidence available to determine the difference in the value of goods. In this matter, it is evident that there was illegal eviction and seizure of goods kept at the premise by the defendant. As per Ext.A7, the commissioner assessed the same to the tune of Rs.89,048/-. But the trial court granted 20% of the amount assessed by the commissioner. Now, the plaintiff seeks 50% of the amount assessed by the commissioner. 21. Point No.3: Now the question poses for consideration is whether grant of Rs.17,850/- alone as the value of the articles seized is justifiable in the facts of the case? In this matter, as already found, the eviction of the plaintiff from the shop room is found to be illegal and when the plaintiff approached the Government, the Government also held the eviction as illegal. It is true that the plaintiff not made any claim before the Panchayath to get back the articles soon after its recovery. Similarly, the defendants also not taken any positive steps to return the articles to the plaintiff. No doubt, the articles were illegally taken possession of by the defendants. Ext.A7 would suggest that the articles are glass, mica, plywood etc. These are articles which can easily be subjected to destruction on their exposure. As per Ext.A7 commission report the value of the articles would come to Rs.89,048/- and the said report was not seriously challenged by the defendants. Anyhow absolute negligence on the part of the plaintiff who is the sufferer (victim) of an illegal eviction could not be found from the facts of the case in the matter of getting back the articles seized. Anyhow absolute negligence on the part of the plaintiff who is the sufferer (victim) of an illegal eviction could not be found from the facts of the case in the matter of getting back the articles seized. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in the appeal memorandum in A.S.No.898/1998 the plaintiff reduced the claim towards value of articles at Rs.44,526/-. In the instant case, there is no justification in granting 20% alone towards the value of the articles where evidently the plaintiff lost the entire articles, and accordingly, it is held that the trial court is not justified in limiting the damages to the tune of Rs.17,809/- In fact, when there is illegal eviction of a tenant by the landlord, the tenant is entitled to get damages, that would cover the financial losses incurred due to the eviction, including costs of moving, temporary housing, damages to the personal property and in some cases compensation for emotional distress or emotional suffering depending on the severity of the situation and attending circumstances. In such view of the matter, the plaintiff is entitled to get 50% of the value of articles he lost in the instant case. Therefore, I am of the view that Rs.44,524/-rounded to Rs.44,600/- is liable to be granted under the head 'loss of articles' being 50% of the amount assessed by the Commissioner. Point No.3 is answered thus. 22. Point No.4: In view of the finding on point Nos.1 to 3, the verdict under challenge requires interference. 23. In the result, A.S.No.898/1998 is allowed in part and the decree granted by the trial court is modified to the tune of Rs.47,600/- (Rs.44,600 + Rs.3,000) holding that the defendants do pay Rs.47,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the suit till date of the decree and at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till realization with proportionate cost to the plaintiff. 24. As a sequel thereof, A.S.No.138/1999 at the instance of the defendants stands dismissed without any order as to cost. All interlocutory orders stand vacated and all interlocutory applications pending in these appeals stand dismissed. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional court forthwith.