Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHARATHI versus SRI REDDY CHATHIRAM, VELLORE

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bharathi v. Sri Reddy Chathiram, Vellore - SECOND APPEAL No.85 of 2002 [2002] RD-TN 404 (26 June 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 26/06/2002

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA

SECOND APPEAL No.85 of 2002

1.Bharathi

2.Nithyanandam

3.Babu

4.Subash ..... Appellants

VS.

1.Sri Reddy Chathiram, Vellore,

rep.by its Executive Officer at

No.12, Katpadi Road,

Thottapalayam, Velloore-4.

2.Babyammal

3.Jayalakshmi

4.Jayanthi

(Since respondents 2 to 4

were set exparte before the

First Appellate Court, they

Second Appeal) ..... Respondents Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 16th November,2001 made in A.S.No.101 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vellore confirming the judgement and decree dated 21.11.1997 made in O.S.No.205/1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Vellore.

For Appellant : Mr.M.Balasubramanian

For Respondents: Mr.G.Jayachandran

:J U D G E M E N T



Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.

2. This second appeal has been preferred against the decision of the lower appellate court confirming the not disputed that the present appellant was tenant under the contesting respondent in a nonresidential premises. After issuing notice under Sec.106 of T.P.Act eviction petition has been filed and it has been admitted.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that notice of termination of tenancy has been issued against the father of the appellant and not against the appellant himself. Since the notice was issued against the father and the suit had been instituted against his father, there is no necessity t6o issue further notice to the present appellant who was substituted in the place of his father in the suit itself. There is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal and hence I do not find any justification to admit the same and accordingly the second appeal is dismissed.

4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been running a garage in the disputed premises and it would be difficult for him to find an alternative site immediately and that therefore he prayed for some time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the suggestion.

5. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I feel that the appellant may be permitted to occupy the premises till the end of 2002 subject to the condition that he shall furnish an undertaking to vacate the same or or before 31.12 .2002. Such undertaking should be given before the trial court within a period of three weeks from today. If such undertaking is not given before the trial court within the said period of three weeks, this order relating to the permission to continue in the premises till December,2002 would be of no effect and the appellant would be free to recover possession by resorting to appropriate execution proceedings.

6. On the other hand, if such undertaking is given within three weeks as stated above, the appellant would be permitted to occupy the premises till 31.12.2002 and thereafter if he fails to vacate, appropriate proceeding under Contempt of Courts Act can be filed in this court by the respondent.

7. The appellant should also give an undertaking to pay the current rent to the contesting respondent with effect from January 2002. The rent payable till the end of June should be paid on or before 31st of July 2002 and the rent for the month of July,2002 onwards should be paid on or before 15th of the current month viz., July rent by July 1 5th August rent by August 15th and so on and so forth till December, 2002.

8. With the above observations the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. CMP.No.545/2002 is closed. Index:Yes

Internet:Yes 26.06.2002. Mp.

P.K.MISRA, J.

S.A.No.85 of 2002




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.