Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. BAFKHY & SONS versus MR.M.R.NARAYANASAMYCHENNAI

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s. Bafkhy & Sons v. Mr.M.R.NarayanasamyChennai-600 001 - CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2398 OF 1999 AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION 13477 OF 1999 [2002] RD-TN 52 (8 February 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 08-02-2002

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2398 OF 1999 AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION 13477 OF 1999 M/s. Bafkhy & Sons,

rep. By its Partner,

Mr.S.M.Thaha Bafakhy,

No.46, Mannady Street,

Chennai-600 001. ..Petitioner Versus

Mr.M.R.Narayanasamy

No.56, Sengaleeneer,

Pillaiyar Koil Street,

Chennai-600 001. ..Respondent For Petitioner :: Mr.T.P.Sankaran For respondent :: Mr.P.K.Sivasubramanian Prayer: Petition filed against the order dated 31-3-1999 in R.C.A. No.30 of 1996 on the file of the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai. : O R D E R



The tenant is the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 31-3-1999 in R.C.A.No.30 of 1996 confirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 2 9-4-1996, made in R.C.O.P.No.263 of 1991.

2. The respondent herein preferred R.C.O.P.No.263 of 1991 for eviction on the grounds of wilful default and act of waste. While the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds, the Appellate Authority confirmed the eviction only on the ground of act of waste. The act of waste complained of by the respondent was that the petition premises was taken on lease by the petitioner as a godown for the hotel run by it in the adjacent property in the name and style " Cafe Garden", that immediately prior to the filing of the petition for eviction, the revision petitioner, while renovating the hotel portion in the course of reconstruction, illegally and clandestinely demolished the eastern and southern wall of the petition premises in No.68, Sengaleeneer Pillaiyar Koil street, Madras-1, and made openings for access to the petitioner's property bearing D.Nos. 45 and 46, Mannadi Street, without the consent of the respondent or his brother and thereby committed an act of waste impairing the material value of the building apart from prejudicially affecting the property rights of the respondent in the petition premises by connecting the same with the adjacent property not owned by the respondent and thereby making itself liable for eviction.

3. The said allegation was resisted by the petitioner by contending that the petition premises, which was a room in the ground floor portion, was taken on lease from the original owners, namely, the predecessor in title of the respondent for using it as a kitchen to the hotel business which was being run for a long time, that two entrances in the eastern and southern wall of the petition premises were in existence for a very long time, that is, even prior to the respondent becoming the owner of the petition premises, that nothing was done without the consent of the landlord, namely, the respondent's brother, that therefore the question of demolition of the eastern or southern side walls did not arise and therefore the allegation of act of waste alleged against the petitioner is not proved. It was therefore contended that there was no question of impairing the value of the building, while the on the other hand, it had only enhanced the value of the room and the utility of it.

4. On the above stated pleadings, while the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 on his side, the petitioner examined its Manager as R. W.1. Exs.P1 and P2 were marked on the side of the respondent, while Exs.R1 to R19 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Ex.P1 is the legal notice dated 31-12-1990 and Exs.R1 and R2 are the reply notices sent on behalf of the petitioner.

5. The trial Court held that the petitioner though contended that the openings in the eastern and southern walls of the petition premises were in existence for a quite long time, no evidence was placed before the Court in support of the said stand. Since eastern and southern walls belonged to the respondent, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to maintain the condition of the said walls as let out to it and in the circumstances, in the absence of requisite evidence in proof of the demolition of those walls f or the purpose of making openings and for using the petition premises as a kitchen with the necessary permission of the respondent, the irresistible conclusion was that the petitioner committed an act of waste, rendering himself liable for eviction.

6. The Appellate Authority, while confirming the said findings of the Rent Controller, observed that when it was the case of the petitioner that the openings in the eastern and southern walls were in existence long prior to the date the respondent became the landlord, the onus was upon the petitioner to establish the said circumstance and since the petitioner failed to discharge the said onus, the order of eviction on the ground of act of waste deserved to be confirmed.

7. Mr.T.P.Sankaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking me through the entire evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, would contend that there was no consistency in the stand of the respondent regarding the alleged act of alteration carried out to the petition premises, that in a claim for eviction on the ground of act of waste, it was the bounden duty of the landlord to prove to the satisfaction of the Court as to what was the real act of waste committed, and in what manner, the act of waste alleged had impaired the value of the building. The learned counsel contended that when the respondent herein became the landlord only in the month of February 1990 and prior to his advent, his brother was the landlord, and when the brother of the respondent was aware of the real condition of the building, based on which the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner and when the respondent as P.W.1 having stated in his evidence that he did propose to examine his brother and the respondent, having failed to examine his brother; thereby failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Court, that the act of waste complained of was deliberately done at the instance of the petitioner. In other words, according to the learned counsel, non-examination of respondent's brother was fatal to the claim of the respondent, in so far as, the allegation of act of waste alleged against the petitioner. The learned counsel, by relying upon the oral evidence placed before the Court, would contend that the openings in the eastern and southern walls of the petition premises, were in existence from the time immemorial, that the petition room was taken on lease by the petitioner only for the purpose of running its kitchen, inasmuch as, the petitioner was running its hotel business for a very long time in its own premises which is adjacent to the petition premises.

8. The learned counsel relied upon 1998(1) LW 796; 1996 (1) CTC 196; 1994(1) MLJ 212; and 1997(2) LW 346 in support of his contention that in the absence of acceptable evidence about the allegation of act of waste, an order of eviction cannot be made. The learned counsel also relied upon 1999 LW 678; 1987(1) MLW 124; 1995(1) CTC 47; and 19 96 TNLJ 99, to contend that in order to seek for eviction on the ground of act of waste, it is incumbent upon the landlord to establish that the act of waste complained of also lowered the value of the building.

9.As against the above submissions, Mr.P.K.Sivasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, after referring to Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 19 60, would contend that, admittedly, the openings were made in the eastern and southern walls of the petition premises in order to provide doorways; that the eastern opening made in the wall provided for an entrance to another man's property and in such circumstances, the averments of the respondent in the application for eviction as contained in paragraph 5 of the said petition were sufficient enough to order eviction under Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Act. The learned counsel also contended that apart from the openings made in the eastern and southern wall, the entrance to the petition premises, which was in existence from its origin on the western side abutting Senganleer Pillaiyar Koil Street, was also closed with plastering and thereby, the value and utility of the building was materially impaired. According to the learned counsel, when the consent of the respondent was not taken, inasmuch as, even as per the averment of the petitioner, the respondent's brother had the knowledge of the alterations caused to the building, which would not amount to consent and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the eviction ordered by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. It was also contended that while the specific case of the respondent before the lower authorities was that the act of waste was committed when renovation was made to the restaurant portion of the petitioner and the stand of the petitioner that the alterations as found in the petition premises were in existence even prior to the date of renovation of their building, the onus was upon the petitioner to establish the said factor and when the petitioner failed to discharge the said onus, the authorities below were fully justified in ordering the eviction. The learned counsel also contended that it is not a demolition of some inner walls , but the demolition of the eastern and southern walls of the petition premises and therefore, the same had caused material damage to the petition premises, attracting the provisions contained in Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Act. The learned counsel relied upon 1984 (1) MLJ 251 in support of his submission that such opening of walls made for providing entrances was taken as an act causing material damage to the petition premises. Reliance was also placed upon 1993 (2) SCC 614 and 2001 (2) MLJ 796 for the proposition that act of waste complained of should be looked into from the point of view of the landlord, inasmuch as, the prejudice caused to the landlord would be the relevant criteria for determining an application filed under Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Act.

10. Having heard the respective contentions of the parties, the question that arises for consideration in this revision is, as to whether the eviction ordered on the ground of act of waste committed by the petitioner was justified or not ?

11. The petitioner took on lease the premises in question, which is stated to be a room. The address of the petition premises is No.68, Senganleer Pillaiyar Koil Street, Madras-1. Adjacent to the said premises, the petitioner is having its own premises at Nos.45 and 46, Mannadi Street. While the petition premises is facing the Singanleer Pillaiyar Koil Street, the adjacent building of the petitioner at Nos.45 and 46, Mannadi Street, is stated to be facing the said street, namely, Mannadi Street. The petitioner is stated to have been running a hotel business consisting of both boarding and lodging facilities. According to the petitioner, the petition premises was taken on lease for the purpose of using it as a kitchen for the restaurant run by the petitioner in its own premises at Nos.45 and 46, Mannadi Street. Whereas, according to the respondent, the premises was let out to the petitioner only for the purpose of using it as a godown. It has come out in evidence that the petition premises is facing Senganleer Pillaiyar Koil Street, which is on the western side of the petition premises. It is also not in dispute that the two openings have been made on the eastern wall, as well as, the southern wall of the petition premises, where doors have been provided for having access into the petition premises, both from the Mannadi Street as well as from the petitioner's own adjacent properties, situated at Nos.45 and 46 Mannadi Street. It is also in evidence that the entrance from the petition premises to the Senganleer Pillaiyar Koil Street on the western side had been closed by plastering the doorway. It is also in evidence that a bore-well has been dug just at the entrance in front of the doorway, which was in existence on the western side of the petition premises in the platform next to the said doorway. In the above stated background, the contention of the respondent before the Court below was that the petition premises fell to his share in partition in February, 1990; that prior to that, the petitioner was paying rents to the respondent's brother, namely, one Thiru M.R.Siva Prakasam; that after the partition in the month of February, 1990, though the brother of the respondent advised the petitioner to pay the rents to the respondent, rents from the month of March, 1990 till the date of filing of the petition were not remitted by the petitioner; that rents were, however, sent by money order to the brother of the respondent, which were returned by his brother; that the petitioner also committed certain act of waste, namely, the demolition of the petitioner's walls on the eastern and southern side by making openings into his own property situated at Nos.45 and 46, Mannadi Street without the written consent of the respondent and also closed the openings that were in existence in the property of the respondent; that the above said acts of waste were committed by the petitioner between December, 1990 and February, 1991; that legal notice was sent on 31-12-199 0 and therefore, the petitioner was liable to be evicted both on the ground of wilful default as well as for having committed an act of waste.

12. As against the above specific case pleaded by the respondent, the stand of the petitioner was that they have been the tenants in the premises for more than 30 years; that they were not aware of the partition effected between the respondent and his brother till the legal notice dated 31-12-1990 was received; that whatever rent that was payable for the period from March, 1990 to December, 1990 was sent on 07 -01-2001 to the respondents counsel; that the two entrances ( openings) in the petition premises were in existence when the said room was taken on lease by the petitioner; that the room was being put into use as a kitchen for their hotel business; that since to the knowledge of the respondent's brother as well as the petitioner, the openings in those walls were in existence for a quite long time and since the petition premises was being used as a kitchen for their hotel business, the question of demolition of the walls and making openings for creating an access to the adjacent property in the present juncture did not arise The specific case of the petitioner was, therefore, that no such openings were made now as alleged by the respondent. In other words, the entrances in the eastern and southern walls of the premises were in existence long before the respondent became the owner of the petition premises.

13. When we look into the justification of the conclusion reached by the lower authorities, the primary question that falls for consideration is as to whether the appellate authority was justified in holding that the burden was upon the petitioner to prove that the openings in the petition premises on the eastern and southern walls were in existence for a long time and that the same were not made at the instance of the petitioner for the first time when renovation was made to petitioner's own premises at Door Nos.45 and 46, Mannadi Street, as alleged by the respondent. In that context, when the uncontroverted facts referred to in the earlier part of this order is looked into, it is seen that the respondent came forward with a specific allegation that the petitioner was carrying on certain renovation work of his own premises at Nos.45 and 46, Mannadi Street and that while carrying out such renovation work to its own premises, the damage was caused to the petition premises by creating openings in the southern side wall and the eastern side wall. It is not in dispute that the openings were made in the walls of the petition premises belonging to the respondent. There is no written agreement to show that in what condition the petition premises was let out to the petitioner. Therefore, as regards the controversy raised, a conclusion will have to be drawn on an analysis of two different versions of the petitioner and the respondent. The fact that renovation was carried out to the petitioner's own premises, situated at Nos.46 and 46 Mannadi Street, is not in dispute. While the respondent contended that the demolition of the walls for the purpose of making entrances on the eastern and southern sides was made for the first time when the petitioner was carrying out the renovation work to its own premises, the said allegation was denied by contending that such openings in the eastern and southern walls were in existence from the time immemorial. In the absence of any other documentary evidence, the only version available is that of R.W.1. Except the said interested testimony of R.W.1, there is no other supporting evidence available to show that the openings in the eastern and southern walls of the petition premises were in existence long prior to the issuance of the legal notice dated 31-12-1990. When according to the petitioner the petition premises was taken on rent for the purpose of locating the kitchen of the restaurant run by the petitioner in its own premises at Nos.45 and 46 Mannadi Street and that the openings were in existence for more than three decades, the stand of the petitioner should have been established by examining some independent witnesses, who were living in and around that hotel premises. Unfortunately, no independent version is available with regard to the said fact pleaded on behalf of the petitioner. When the specific stand of the respondent was that the openings were made by the petitioner while carrying out the renovation work of its own restaurant premises in the adjacent property in the year 1991 and when the said stand of the respondent was consistent through out, in the absence of any other documentary evidence describing about the nature of the tenancy or the description of the petition premises, it will have to be held that the burden was upon the petitioner to establish beyond doubt that the openings in the eastern and southern walls of the petition premises in the form of entrances were in existence for very long time and they were not of recent origin, as contended by the respondent. Therefore, when the said burden was not fully discharged to the satisfaction of the lower authorities, the conclusion of the lower appellate Court on that aspect cannot be found fault with. If that be the case, it is implicit that the petitioner was responsible for making the openings in the eastern and southern walls of the petition premises.

14. When such openings were made by the petitioner and when admittedly the consent of the respondent was not obtained for making such openings, the question to be considered is as to whether that could be held to be an act which would materially impair the value of the building in order to hold that the petitioner committed an act of waste. The fact that petition premises is an old building; that there is a first floor in the petition premises and that no express permission was obtained for running a kitchen cannot be controverted, in view of the categoric evidence available to that effect. The fact that the openings were made in the walls of the petition premises is also not disputed. Apart from the openings made on the eastern side, as well as, the southern side walls of the petition premises, the main doorway leading to the Senganleer Pillaiyar Koil Street on the western side has been closed by plastering the doorway, though it transpires that the wings of the doors have been kept intact and are in the closed position. The petition premises has got its address as No.68, Senganleer Pillaiyar Koil Street, Madras-1. Therefore, entrance on the western side where Senganleer Pillaiyar Koil Street is situated was the only entrance to the petition premises. There is also no evidence placed on the side of the petitioner that any sanctioned plan by the authorities concerned is available for having created the openings on the eastern wall of the petition premises, which leads to the Mannadi Street. It is also admitted that the opening made on the southern wall of the petition premises provides for an access to the adjacent property, belonging to the petitioner, situated at Nos.45 and 46, Mannadi Street. All these alterations to the petition premises would definitely cause material changes to the structure of the original building that was existing in the petition premises. If the petition premises is to be brought back to its original position, it would involve huge expenditure for the respondent by way of cost of materials, labour etc. There is also no evidence available on record at the instance of the petitioner to show that any safeguards were made when alterations to such an extent were carried out to the petition premises. Therefore, it is very difficult to say with assertion that the strength of the building was not in any way affected by making such alterations in the form of two openings in the two walls, namely, eastern wall and southern wall of the petition premises, especially, when it is not in dispute that there is also a first floor construction to the petition premises. Similarly, when the western side main entrance to the petition premises from Senganleer Pillaiyar Koil Street was closed by plastering the entry, if that doorway is to be cleared by removal of the plastering already made, it cannot be held that in the course of such removal, no damage would be caused to the western side wall of the petition premises as well. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion would be that the alterations effected to the petition premises had materially impaired the value of the building and when such alterations were carried out at the instance of the petitioner without the consent of the landlord, the respondent herein, it will have to be concluded that the petitioner committed an act of waste and that had impaired materially the value, as well as, the utility of the building, as contemplated under Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Act. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope to hold that the conclusions of both the Courts below in ordering the eviction on that ground cannot be sustained.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1998 (1) LW 796( M.KARUPPANA GOUNDER versus C.VISUVASAM & 4 OTHERS); 1996 (1) CTC 196 (P.JANAKIRAMAN versus N.UMADEVI & 5 OTHERS) and 1994 (1) MLJ 212 (M/S.RAJARANI SILK PALACE & OTHERS versus C.K.B.MURUGAN) for the proposition that in an application for eviction filed under Section 10 (2) ( iii) of the Act, the burden was upon the landlord to prove that the act complained of is likely to diminish the quality, strength and value of the building. Inasmuch as the evidence available on record disclosed as narrated above the act of waste alleged against the petitioner materially impaired the value and utility of the building, the principle set out in the judgment reported in 1998 (1) LW 796 has been fully complied with. In the judgment reported in 1996 (1) CTC 196, it was held that in a case filed for eviction based on allegation of act of waste, there should be evidence in proof of the allegation levelled against the tenant. Here again, since the act of waste alleged against the petitioner has been established in full, the ratio of the said decision has also been duly complied with. In 1994 (1) MLJ 212, it was held that in the absence of any evidence on the side of the landlord to show that the construction put up by the tenant impaired the value and utility of the building, the eviction sought for under Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Act cannot be granted. Since the evidence available on record is contrary to the findings recorded in the above decision, the same cannot be applied to the facts of this case. In 199 7 (2) LW 346, it was held that placing of a new door did not impair the value and utility of the building and did not furnish cause of action for eviction on the ground of act of waste. Here again, since in the case on hand the evidence available on record sufficiently established that the act of waste complained of had materially impaired the value and utility of the building, therefore, the said judgment cannot also be applied to the facts of this case. In 1987 (1) MLJ 124 equivalent to 1999 LW 678 (R.R.DINAKARAN versus S.L.CHINNAKUPPUSWAMI), His Lordship Mr.Justice S.Natarajan as he then was, has held as under:

"...... It is therefore futile to contend that the tenant is not entitled to carry out works to the building and keep it in good condition because that would affect the right of the landlord to seek recovery of possession of the building after some length of time on the ground that the building is an old one and that he requires it bona fide for purposes of demolition and reconstruction."

A reading of the above passage itself makes it clear that there is absolutely no scope of comparision of the case dealt with by the learned Judge in the said decision and the one involved in the case on hand.

16. In 1995 (1) CTC 47 (C.KAILACHAND JAIN AND 2 OTHERS versus MOHAMED KASIM) His Lordship Mr.Justice Thangamani, has this to say : "....... where there was almost complete absence of material relevant to the determination of this main question, except the evidence of the land lady's husband who said that the act of the tenant would impair materially the value or utility of the building but did not choose to say how and why, Held it is difficult to hold that the demolition of the wall in that case has resulted in impairing the value or utility of the building.......". " ......It must be established through proper evidence as to how and in what manner the reprehensible act has materially impaired or is likely to impair the value or the utility of the building..... ". Therefore, in view of the said reasoning, the learned Judge was pleased to hold that Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Act was not attracted. In view of the conclusions in the case on hand, the said decision cannot also be applied to the facts of this case.

17. In 1996 TNLJ 99 (TAJUDEEN versus C.J.VEERABADRA CHETTIAR

& ANOTHER), the question for consideration was whether mere allegation of removal of the alleged partition wall resulted in impairing the value and utility of the building. His Lordship Mr.Justice S.M.Abdul Wahab was pleased to hold as under in last paragraph :

".... In certain cases, the removal of a wall here and there must be useful and help convenient enjoyment of the building let out. More so, when a building is let out for business, it normally requires some adjustment and alteration of the building. Hence, in such case, the test must be whether the adjustments or the alteration, involving some demolition here and there, are harmful to the main structure and unwarranted. Therefore, mere demolition of a partition wall will not automatically attract the penalty of eviction as provided under Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960....."

The demolition complained of in that case is only a partition wall and not the main wall. Further, it was held that the same did not impair the value of the building. Therefore, the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of this case.

18. In the judgment cited by the learend counsel for the respondent in 1993 (2) SCC 614 (VIPIN KUMAR versus ROSHAN LAL ANAND AND OTHERS), it has been held as under in paragraph 2 : ".......It is, therefore, clear that if the tenant had committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building, he is liable to ejectment. The finding recorded by the Controller is that on account of the construction of the wall and putting up a door, the flow of light and air had been stopped. He removed the fixtures. So, the value of the demised shop had been impaired and the utility of the building also is impaired. The impairment of the value or utility of the building is from the point of the landlord and not of the tenant....." "...... Therefore, the Rent Controller has to independently consider and exercise discretion vested in him keeping in view the proved facts to decree ejectment. It is for the landlord under the circumstances to prove such facts which warrant the Controller to order eviction in his favour. The landlord had not proved such facts in his favour. Therefore, the Court had committed illegality in granting the decree of ejectment. We find no force in the contention. Undoubtedly, the statute, on proof of facts, gives discretion to the Court, by Section 13 (2) and made mandatory in case covered by Section 13 (3), to order eviction. In a given set of facts, the Rent Controller, despite ding that the tenant committed such acts which may impair the value or utility of the building, yet may refuse to grant the relief of eviction. It is for the tenant to plead and prove that the circumstances are such as may not warrant eviction and then the burden shifts on to the landlord to rebut these facts or circumstances. Then, the Rent Controller is to weigh pros and cons and exercise the discretion. No such attempt was made by the appellant. So, no fault can be laid at the Rent Controller's failure to exercise the discretion......" (underlining is mine)

19. In 2000 (1) MLJ 796, His Lordship Justice P.Thangavel has held as under in paragraph 6 :

"..... Fixing a teakwood door and door frames will cost considerably high and cutting to a height of one and half feet at the bottom of the door apart from cutting the door frames on either side without any support at the bottom of the door frames will certainly impair the value and utility of the building. Constructing a platform to a height of one and half feet in the main entrance of the premises let out to him will add fuel to the fire."

20. In 1984 (1) MLJ 251 (THE ASSOCIATED TRADERS & ENGINEERS LTD., BY ITS DIRECTOR INCHARGE, NEW DELHI versus ALAMELU AMMAL), His Lordship Mr.Justice M.Fakkir Mohammed has held as under in paragraph 2 : "As regards the ground of act of waste is concerned, it is not disputed that the tenant has not obtained the written consent of the landlady. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after all the tenant has made an opening in the wall dividing two rooms for the purpose of easy access in using the ground floor as a godown. There is no record to prove that the tenant obtained the consent of the landlady for making an opening in the wall, which had divided two rooms. The said act of making an opening in the main wall, which divides two rooms, without the consent of the landlady will certainly amount to an act of waste. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent herein in a storeyed building, like the demised building, making an opening in the wall will definitely weaken the strength of the wall and in the long run, it will weaken the building. It has been held in Sha Jetmull Genmull v. Gokuldas Jamunadass & Company, by this Court that the tenant should be held to have committed acts of waste within the mischief of Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in a case where the tenant has not obtained the written consent of the landlord even if the alteration made by the tenant may add to the utility of the building for some time, since it may cause serious damage to the building ultimately and in the long run. The finding of the appellate authority being one on facts, this Court sitting in revision, cannot set aside the finding of fact as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswami)".

All the above three decisions fully support the stand of the respondent.

21. Having regard to my above said conclusions, this Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.

Index : Yes 08-02-2002 suk

Copy to

The VII Small Causes Court,

Chennai.

Suk F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN



C.R.P.NO.2398 OF 1999

08-02-2002

C.R.P.NO.2398 OF 1999 AND

C.M.P.NO.13477 OF 1999

F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

After orders were pronounced in this revision, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to vacate and hand over possession of the petition premises, if he is granted some breathing time. Considering the prayer of the petitioner and also after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, who has no objection for granting some reasonable time to the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the premises, the petitioner is granted time till 8-5-2000 for vacating the petition premises and for handing over possession of the same to the respondent herein, subject however to the condition that the petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking to that effect in this Court within one week from this date. If the petitioner fails to file the affidavit of undertaking within the said date, (i.e.) on or before 15-2-2002, the time granted in this order will automatically cease to operate.

08-02-2002

F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

C.R.P.NO.2398 OF 1999

AND

C.M.P.NO.13477 OF 1999

08-02-2002

PRE DELIVER ORDER IN C.R.P.NO.2398 OF 1999

TO

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

(S.UBEDULLA KHADRI), P.A.




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.