IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

24.09.2021

Pronounced on

08.10.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

S.A.No.1492 of 2008

T.Selvamani @ Sivasubramaniam ... Appellant/2^nd defendant

Vs.

1.H.Abdul Khader

... Respondent/Plaintiff

2.The Commissioner,

Corporation of Chennai,

Rippon Buildings,

Chennai – 3.

... Respondent/3^rd defendant

Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code

of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgement and decree made

in A.S.No.202 of 2007 dated 08.02.2008 on the file of the II

Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai as confirmed in

O.S.No.1858 of 2003 dated 22.08.2005 on the file of the VII

Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellant

: Mr.N.Mariappan

For Respondents: No appearance

JUDGEMENT

(Heard through video conferencing)

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the

judgement and decree dated 08.02.2008 passed by the II

Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.202 of

2007.

2. The appellant was the second defendant. The first

defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal

representatives are not impleaded.

For the sake of

convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and

defendants.

3. The short averments:-

The suit property is shop No.16-B, Lilly Pond shopping

complex at New Moore Market, Chennai, belongs to the third

defendant/Corporation. Due to some financial crisis, the

first defendant had let out the shop to the plaintiff. The

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

plaintiff being the tenant of the first defendant is

conducting the shop and paying rent to the Corporation. The

second defendant is the power agent of the first defendant

through whom the plaintiff was paying the rent. As there was

no tenancy agreement entered into between the plaintiff and

the first defendant, the defendants were not issuing any

receipts for the rent paid by the plaintiff. Taking advantage

of the situation, the defendants are causing troubles to the

plaintiff to conduct his business at the said shop. Hence,

the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for permanent

injunction.

3.1 The second defendant has filed a written statement

stating that the suit shop and another shop were allotted to

one Arinandan Shah; the said Arinandan Shah along with first

defendant and second defendant's father was running a

partnership business in those two shops; after the fire

accident occurred in the Old Moore Market, with the help of

funds granted by the World Bank, new shops were built in the

New Moore Market Blocks, Alikullam; in the said shops, two

shops bearing shop Nos.16-B and 597-B were allotted to

Arinandan Shah and the business was running in the same

pattern as it was run earlier; though the second defendant’s

father was also the partner in the said two shops, both the

shops were allotted only in the name of the first defendant;

after sometime, the first defendant did not show any interest

to run the suit shop and wanted to conduct the business

separately in shop No.597-B; so, he gave an application to

third defendant/Corporation to effect name transfer in favour

of the second defendant in respect of shop No.16-B and the

same is pending; the second defendant is not the power agent

of the first defendant. They have business transactions

between themselves and hence, the plaintiff cannot file this

suit considering the second defendant as stranger.

3.2. Though the third defendant appeared through his

counsel, no statement seems to have been filed.

4. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed

the following issues:-

1. Whether it is true to contend that the plaintiff is a

tenant under the first defendant in the suit shop?

2. Whether it is true to contend that the plaintiff and

second defendant are partners in respect of suit shops?