Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 583
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
G. Rengarajan @ Ravi
Versus
K.N.S. Gopal & Others
S.A.Nos.758, 759, 760 & 757 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009(in S.A.Nos.758 & 759 of 2009)
Decided on : 03-02-2011
For the Appellant:A.S. Narasimhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 & R2 - T.V. Ramanujam, Sr. Counsel for M/s. T.V. Krishnamachari, R3 - given up.
Headnote:
lease - property occupation - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 - [Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1955] - The court discussed the difference between 'lease' and 'licence' and the criteria for determining the nature of the right created by the document. It emphasized the need for exclusive possession to constitute a lease and the obligation of the licensor to be vigilant in evicting the licensee after the termination of the licence. The court found that the appellant was only a licensee and not a tenant, based on the cancellation of licences by the owners of the premises. It held that the appellant's services were not equivalent to rent and there was no evidence of exclusive transfer of interest in the immovable property in favor of the appellant, warranting no interference in second appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit seeking prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from evicting him from the property. The defendants filed suits seeking mandatory injunctions and damages against the appellant. The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the suits filed by the defendants. The appellate court upheld the decision, leading to the second appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was only a licensee and not a tenant, based on the cancellation of licences by the owners of the premises. It held that the appellant's services were not equivalent to rent and there was no evidence of exclusive transfer of interest in the immovable property in favor of the appellant, warranting no interference in second appeal.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the nature of the appellant's occupancy rights, the cancellation of licences, and the entitlement to damages for use and occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for exclusive possession to constitute a lease and the obligation of the licensor to be vigilant in evicting the licensee after the termination of the licence. It held that the appellant's services were not equivalent to rent and there was no evidence of exclusive transfer of interest in the immovable property in favor of the appellant, warranting no interference in second appeal.
Final Decision: The second appeals were dismissed, with a modification to set aside the pre-suit damages awarded by the first appellate court. The respondents were allowed to file necessary applications to quantify damages as per law before the trial court for the period between the date of filing of the suits till the mandatory injunctions are complied with by the appellant or enforced.
1. The defendant-G.Rengarajan in O.S.Nos.7975 and 7974 of 2005 filed the S.A.Nos.758, 759 and 760 of 2009 inveighing the common judgment and decrees 31.12.2008 passed by the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S.Nos.420, 421, 481 of 2005 confirming the common judgment and decrees dated 20.6.2008 passed by the III Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.Nos.7975, 7974 and 7975 of 2005, which were filed by the respondents herein seeking mandatory injunctions and damages as against the said Rengarajan/appellant herein and S.A.No.757 of 2009 is filed by the said G.Rengarajan, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4687 of 2005, inveighing the common judgment and decrees dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Principal City Court, Chennai in A.S.No.496 of 2008 confirming the common judgment and decrees dated 20.6.2008 passed by the III Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.4687 of 2005, which was filed seeking prohibitory injunction as against the respondents herein.
2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. The factual matrix absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these second appeals would run thus:
(a) The plaintiff in O.S.No.4687 of 2005, being the appellant herein, filed the suit seeking prohibitory injunction, so as to prevent K.N.S.Gopal, Mrs.Lakshmi and Janardhanan-the defendants therein from evicting him from the suit property, otherwise than in accordance with law.
(b) However, K.N.S.Gopal/D1 in the said suit O.S.No.4687 of 2005 filed the suit O.S.No.7974 of 2005 in respect of a car parking area.
(c) Whereas, Lakshmi/D2 in the said suit O.S.No.4687 of 2005 filed the suit O.S.No.7975 of 2005 in respect of two portions in a building as against the said Rengarajan seeking the following reliefs:
"a) to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant to remove the things and leave the schedule mentioned property as vacant and hand over the vacant possession of the same within a time fixed by this Court;
ii) to direct the defendants to pay Rs.24,000 (Rupees twenty four thousand only) towards past damages for wrongful use and occupation for the period from 1.8.2005 till the date of filing of suit; and
iii) to direct the defendant to pay the future damages to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6000 per month towards from the date of plaint till the date defendant removes the things and leave the schedule mentioned property and hand over vacant possession of the same."
(d) Written statements were filed by the respective defendants and the suits were resisted. Whereupon joint trial was conducted.
(e) During trial, the respondent in S.A.No.758 of 2009 (plaintiff in O.S.No.7975 of 2005) examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2(the plaintiff in O.S.No.7974 of 2005) and marked Exs.A1 to A10. The appellant herein (defendant in O.S.Nos.7974 and 7975 of 2005) examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B7.
(f) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit O.S.No.4687 of 2005 filed by Rengarajan-the appellant herein and decreed the suits O.S.Nos.7974 and 7975 of 2005 filed by K.N.S.Gopal and Lakshmi-the respondents herein, granting mandatory injunction but the prayers for damages were dismissed.
(g) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the common judgment and decrees of the trial Court, the said Rengarajan filed three appeals, namely, A.S.Nos.420, 421 and 496 of 2008 and the said Lakshmi and K.N.S.Gopal also filed two appeals, namely, A.S.Nos.481 and 482 of 2008, respectively, as against the rejection of the prayer for damages in favour of them.
(h) The appellate Court heard all the five appeals and disposed them accepting the plea of K.N.S.Gopal and Lakshmi and rejecting the prayer of G.Rengarajan @ Ravi in the matters concerned.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said common judgment and decrees, the said Rengarajan filed these four second appeals, contending inter alia thus:
(i) The Courts below fell into
