SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Mad) 4058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
MADRAS SEVA SADAN - PLAINTIFF
Vs.
DR. N.V. RAO @ NICOLAS VINCENT RAO - DEFENDANT
CS. No. 529 of 2010
Decided On : 09-12-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Yashodhvardhan, M/s Krishna Ravindran
For the Defendant : Mr. M.K. Kabir, Mr. T. Jayaraman

Headnote:

Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Vacant possession - Withdrawal of permission - Plaintiff quantified the mesne profits for three years prior to the filing of the suit, which they claimed was a reasonable estimate measure of the fair rent - Held, In fact in Ex.P6, it had been very clearly mentioned that the constructions in the suit property also are illegal - It is, therefore, seen that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover past and future mesne profits - Quantum of profit has to be fixed at the rate at which the Plaintiff seeks and there cannot be any quarrel over the same since the Defendant has also not objected to the said amount - Therefore, this court holds that the Defendant has to pay the mesne profits as claimed in the suit - Accordingly, all the issues are answered in favour of the Plaintiff - Civil suit allowed

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

This civil suit has been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:-

(a) directing the Defendant or any other person claiming through him to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property viz. 12A, New Giri Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 and more particularly described in the schedule.

(b) directing the Defendant to pay mesne profits of Rs.54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Only) at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per month till this date.

(c) directing the Defendant to pay mesne profits at Rs.1,50,000/- per month from the date of the plaint till the date the Defendant delivers vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.

(d) directing the Defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff is the Madras Seva Sadan, a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and represented by its Honorary General Secretary, Mrs. C. Prema Kumar and the Defendant Dr. V.N. Rao alias Nicolas Vincent Rao is her own brother.

3. It had been stated in the plaint that the suit property at No. 12-A, New Giri Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 had been acquired by the Plaintiff under two Sale Deeds, both dated 02.02.1976 and both registered on 09.02.1976 as Document Nos.593 and 594 of 1976 in the office of the Registrar, North Madras. The first Sale Deed related to land to an extent of 8 grounds and the second Sale Deed is related to land of 4 grounds. A building to an extent of about 2 grounds is on the Eastern portion and the rest of the 12 grounds are vacant lands.

4. It had been further stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff Society is running an Institution under the name 'The Madras Seva Sadan Unit Sir M. Venkatasubba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School and Mr. N.V. Rao, the father of the Defendant was the Honorary Correspondent of the said Institution and after his demise on 07.09.1992, the Defendant was appointed as the Honorary Correspondent from 15.03.1993. The father of the Defendant was also the executor of the Will of the erstwhile owner of the property, Mrs. Mutha Andalamma, also known as Lady M. Venkatasubba Rao, wife of late Sir M. Venkatasubba Rao, former Judge of the Madras High Court.

5. It had been further stated that during his tenure as Honorary Correspondent, the Defendant was permitted to occupy a portion of the building on the ground floor at Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School premises. It had been further stated that due to certain activities that did not augur well for the Institution, the Governing Body, by its resolution, dated 29.10.1998, removed the Defendant from the post of Honorary Correspondent and he was requested to move out from the premises and to move to the suit property, viz. 12-A, New Giri Road, T. Nagar, till he found alternate accommodation.

6. It had been further stated that the Governing Body, in their meeting on 11.6.1999, had permitted the Defendant to stay till October 1999 and by another resolution dated 22.9.1999, permitted him to stay till 30.9.2000. Since the Defendant did not vacate, the Plaintiff, by letter dated 9.11.2000, called upon him to vacate the premises. Further time was granted by the resolution dated 12.12.200, since the son of the Defendant had pleaded to permit them to stay till his wedding in January 2001.

7. It had been further stated that the Defendant failed to keep up his commitment to vacate. Finally, by letter dated 2.3.2001, he was asked to quit and deliver vacant possession. The Defendant had sent a reply dated 10.3.2001, refuting the stand of the Plaintiff and continued to occupy the premises, in spite of withdrawal of the permission granted to him.

8. The Plaintiff quantified the mesne profits for three years prior to the filing of the suit at Rs.54,00,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, which they claimed was a reasonable estimate measure of the fair rent. Future mesne profits at the same rate was also claimed in the suit. The suit had, therefore




































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top