Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ
M.S. Sivakumar, Managing Director, M/s. Agni Communications Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
The Director General of Police, Govt. Estate, Chennai & others
Writ Appeal No. 1029 of 1998 and C.M.P. Nos. 11428 of 1998 & 1842 of 1999
Decided On : 15-04-1999
WRIT PETITION - POSSESSION OF PROPERTY - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - REAGITATION OF SAME ISSUE - DISCRETIONARY REMEDY - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - FACTUAL DISPUTE - WRIT COURT NOT TO BE CONVERTED AS CIVIL COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to restore possession of the ground floor of premises No. 567, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Madras - 18 to him and pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. Appellant claimed he had taken the premises on monthly rent for non-residential purposes and had an agreement with the landlord to lease out additional space. However, due to misunderstandings, the landlord began giving him trouble, leading to the filing of a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was later withdrawn following a settlement between the parties. Despite the settlement, the landlord continued to interfere with appellant's possession, prompting him to file another suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and an application for temporary injunction. The application was dismissed by the Civil Court, holding that appellant was not in possession of the property on the date of filing the suit. Appellant then filed an appeal and a writ petition, alleging that he was forcibly dispossessed in January 1998.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellant's writ petition was an abuse of process of Court. The Court found that the appellant was attempting to reagitate the same issue that had already been decided against him in the Civil Court. The Court also held that the question of whether the appellant was in possession of the property and whether he was forcibly dispossessed was a disputed question of fact that could not be decided in writ proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's writ petition was an abuse of process of Court? 2. Whether the question of whether the appellant was in possession of the property and whether he was forcibly dispossessed could be decided in writ proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant's writ petition was an abuse of process of Court because he was attempting to reagitate the same issue that had already been decided against him in the Civil Court. The Court also found that the appellant had failed to obtain interim orders in the Civil Court and in the appeal filed against the Civil Court's order. 2. The Court held that the question of whether the appellant was in possession of the property and whether he was forcibly dispossessed was a disputed question of fact that could not be decided in writ proceedings. The Court noted that such matters are to be decided by a civil Court.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and the connected C.M.Ps.
1. Petitioner in W.P. 1277 of 1998 is the appellant before us.
.2. The relief sought for in the writ petition is for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to take action against respondents 5 and 6 and restore possession of the petition portion in the ground floor of premises No. 567, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Madras - 18 to the petitioner and direct respondents 1 to 6 pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to petitioner and pass such other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. Material facts may be summarised thus: 5th respondent, is the owner of the premises in question and it is the case of appellant that he has taken on monthly rent three rooms and a toilet in Door No. 567, Anna Salai, Madras located in the middle portion having an area of 580 sq.ft. for non-residential purposes. It is further case of appellant that two tenants adjoining the said premises vacated and landlord also agreed to lease out the said premises also to the appellant. For the said purpose, Landlord also received an additional advance of Rs. 57, 000 from him. After sometime misunderstanding arose between them and 5th respondent started giving trouble to petitioner, which compelled him to file a suit in O.S.No 8440 of 1992 before City Civil Court, Madras for permanent prohibitory injunction. Due to intervention of well-wishers and others, the matter was settled. By virtue of settlement, the additional space which according to him was let out by 5th respondent was agreed to be surrendered and in respect of middle portion, Landlord agreed not to interfere with his possession. In view of the settlement, appellant withdrew the suit and Court also recorded compromise and the suit itself was disposed of.
4. It is the case of appellant, that even thereafter, 5th respondent began giving trouble to him, which compelled him to file several complaints to police and even attempt to murder was made. In the meanwhile, 5th respondent also filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller alleging default of payment of rent and subletting. The attempts of 5th respondent to forcibly evict petitioner continued. It is further stated that for all rooms bearing Door Nos. 565, 565-A, 566 and 567 are having common entrance and pathway. In view of interference by 5th respondent, even the usage of common pathway is prevented.
.5. It is also admitted in the writ petition alleging threat to possession, appellant filed O.S. No. 6665 of 1997 on the file of 17th Assistant City Civil Court, Madras and that suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining 5th respondent and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession of appellant. In that suit, an interim application was also filed as I.A. No. 17551 of 1997 seeking an order of temporary injunction. It is also admitted that 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit in the case narrating the entire facts and as per order dated 212. 1997, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed holding that petitioner/appellant was not in possession of the property, on the date when he filed the suit. The suit was filed in September, 1997.
6. An appeal was taken under Order 43, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dismissing injunction application before the Principal City Civil Court Madras as C.M.A. No. 13 of 1998.The appeal was preferred in early January, 1998 Appellant also moved for interim injunction before the appellate authority. 5th respondent also entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. It is in between the present writ petition is filed on 21. 1998. In the writ petition it is averred that appellant was in possession of property till 11. 1998 and he was forcibly dispossessed only thereafter.
7. Detailed counter affidavit was filed by 5th respondent questioning the right of appellant to maintain the writ petition. According to him, appellant is not in possession of any portion of prope
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
