AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria
This appeal is focussed at the instance of the fifth defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam passed in O.S. No. 37 of 2009. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:
a] The plaintiff- Jayalakshmi, who is the first respondent herein filed the suit as against respondents 2 to 5 and also the appellant herein as defendants 1 to 5 seeking the following reliefs:
m) (Vernacular matter deleted)
M) (Vernacular matter deleted)
(Extracted as such)
b] The contention of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff took on lease from D5 the suit property for her own occupation. However, because of certain circumstances, she could not temporarily reside in the said property; hence she put D1 in possession as her agent; however, D1 betrayed the confidence reposed by her and he put D2 to D4 as tenants in the suit property unauthorisedly. Hence, the suit was filed.
c] Whereas D5-temple resisted the suit on the ground that initially the plaintiff Jayalakshmi was put in possession of the property as a tenant; but, subsequently, she committed breach of the tenancy agreement and she sub-leased the property in favour of D2 to D4.
d] The other defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit, with which at present this court is not concerned with as they have not preferred any appeal as against the eviction decree passed against them.
e] The trial court framed the relevant issues and during trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs. A1 to A17. On the defendant''s side, D2-Pugalenthi examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs. B1 to B12.
f] Ultimately, the trial court ordered eviction of D1 to D4 and no decree has been passed as against D5; however certain observations are there touching upon D5 in the decree.
g] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said observations in the decree, the temple/D5 has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
Heard both sides.
The learned counsel for plaintiff/first respondent would submit that the very appeal itself is not maintainable at the instance of D5 because there is no direction or order passed by the lower court as against D5 and it is always open for D5, if it chooses to do so to evict the plaintiff Jayalakshmi, as per law.
The learned counsel for the appellant/D5 would submit that the temple would not have preferred this appeal at all but for certain adverse directions given in the decree as against the temple as though the appellant/D5 impliedly should agree for enhancement of rent etc from the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff, according to D5 got her lease forfeited by virtue of she having committed breach of the contract of lease.
The points for consideration are as under:
Whether D5 is having any locus standi to file this appeal and whether the clauses in the decree could be construed as the ones that might operate as against the interest of D5 in taking legal action as against the plaintiff so as to get her evicted from the premises?
Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree of the court below?
Both these points are taken together for consideration as they are inter-linked and inter-woven, inter-connected and entwined with each other.
Indubitably and indisputably, unarguably and unassailably, the suit property concerned was once leased out by D5 in favour of the plaintiff. However, D5 would dispute the allegations/averments in the plaint relating to the method and manner in which the plaintiff narrated and detailed the occupation of D1 to D4 in the suit property. The only apprehension in the mind of D5 is that the findings in the judgment and the clauses in the decree passed by the trial court should not in any way incapacitate D5 from evicting the plaintiff. Whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiff/the first respondent, not even for a moment hesitate to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/D5; however, he would submit that it is open for the plaintiff to resist as per law any action that would be taken by D5 as against her. As such, the whole issue so far this appeal is concerned has got boiled down to the aforesaid level.
Accordingly,
Point No. 1 is decided to the effect that D5 is having locus standi to file this appeal and the clauses in the decree cannot be construed as the ones that might operate as against the interest of D5 in taking legal action as against the plaintiff so as to get her evicted from the premises.
Point No. 2:
In the result, I would like to dispose of the appeal by passing the following order:
The findings by the trial court and the clauses in the decree would not be of any hurdle or hindrance to D5 to take action as against the plaintiff and in the event of D5 taking action as against the plaintiff, it is open for the plaintiff to take whatever defence tenable under the law.
No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
In order to disambiguate the ambiguity if any, I would like to observe that between the plaintiff and D1 to D4 the findings and the decree of the trial court shall be binding.