IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the owner of premises may not be held liable for damages resulting from an explosion caused by the tenant storing explosive substances, if the tenant had control over the premises and was responsible for conducting the business in adherence to relevant laws.

JUDGMENT :

The first defendant in a suit for damages is in appeal challenging the decree against him.

2. The first defendant is the owner of a shop room. He had let out the room to the second defendant for storing explosive substances. The plaintiff is the owner of a building situated on the opposite side of the building of the first defendant. He is doing business therein. On 16.11.1997 at about 2.55 a.m., there occurred a huge explosion in the first defendant's building. Consequent thereto, the building of the plaintiff, including the articles therein, were completely damaged. The suit is filed claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs. The plaintiff alleges that defendants 1 to 3 were doing joint business as partners.

3. The first defendant denied the allegation of partnership and his involvement in the business. He denied the claim that he is liable for the damages. It was also pleaded that the building was leased out to the 2nd defendant who was conducting the business on the strength of the required licences.

4. The second defendant contended that he was doing the business with all necessary licenses. There was no negligence on his part and that all necessary precautions as required under the licence were taken by him.

5. The third defendant denied his involvement in the business.

6. The trial court found that the business belonged to the second defendant. The claim against the third defendant was dismissed. The first defendant was made liable, he being the owner of the building wherein the explosives were stored. The first defendant challenges the decree against him.

7. I have heard Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-1st defendant and Sri.G.Sreekumar Chelur, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent-plaintiff.

8. The point that arises for determination is,

“Was the trial court right in having made the first defendant-the owner of the premises liable for the damages that resulted consequent on the explosion that occurred in the premises when it was occupied by his tenant, the second defendant ?

9. In this appeal we are concerned only regarding the liability of the first defendant. Decree is sought against the first defendant in two capacities; firstly, on the allegation that he is a partner in the business that was being conducted by the second defendant, and secondly, that he being the owner of the premises in which the explosion occurred, is liable for the damages.

10. As regards the claim that the first defendant was doing business in partnership along with the second defendant, there is absolutely no evidence. Ext.B3 is the licence deed between the first defendant and the second defendant evidencing that the premises were let out by the first defendant to the second defendant for the conduct of the business. Exts.B1 and B2 are the certified copies of profession tax register and demand register maintained at the Municipality in respect of the building. It shows that the business in the room in question was conducted by the second defendant. There is no evidence to find the involvement of the first defendant in the business. Therefore, the claim made against the first defendant in the capacity as a partner/joint business, fails.

11. Now the question regarding the liability of the first defendant in his capacity as the owner of the premises need to be considered. The learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff would argue that, when the first defendant had granted lease of his premises for conducting an inherently dangerous activity, he takes with it the liability to indemnify the third parties against any damages that may result from the activity in the leased premises. The liability is an “absolute liability” subject to no exceptions, it is contended. The person who stores inherently dangerous articles is responsible for the damages resulting thereby. The first defendant having let the premises for such activity is equally responsible and liable, is the argument. Though the ru