Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4817
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ALEX ABRAHAM – Appellant
Versus
EZHUPUNNA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
AS 898/1998
ADV JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD, ADV P.R.VENKATESH, SMT.ASHA P.KURIAKOSE
Illegal eviction of a tenant entitles them to damages, and the trial court's limitation on damages was unjustified, leading to an increase in the awarded amount.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 - Appeal against decree and judgment - Plaintiff claimed damages for illegal eviction from shop room and loss of business articles - Trial court awarded Rs.20,809/- as damages, which was contested by both parties - Court found eviction illegal and modified damages to Rs.47,600/- with interest. (Paras 8, 23)
(B) Res Judicata - The trial court found that the suit was not barred by res judicata or Order II Rule 2 of CPC, as the previous suit did not address the legality of eviction or damages. (Paras 12, 16)
(C) Damages - The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to 50% of the assessed value of the articles lost due to illegal eviction, amounting to Rs.44,600/-. (Paras 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff was evicted from a shop room by the defendants, claiming the eviction was legal due to lease expiration. The plaintiff sought damages for loss of articles and profits. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The eviction was found illegal, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the loss of articles. The trial court's award was modified to Rs.47,600/-. (Paras 23)
Issues: The main issues were the legality of eviction, the applicability of res judicata, and the adequacy of damages awarded. (Paras 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that illegal eviction entitles the tenant to damages, and the trial court's limitation of damages was unjustified. (Paras 21)
Result: A.S.No.898/1998 is allowed in part; A.S.No.138/1999 is dismissed.
COMMON JUDGMENT
AS Nos.898/1998 & 138/1999 Dated this the 7th day of February, 2025 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. 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.
