Saraswathi Ammal vs Viveka Primary School

S. Jagadeesan, J.—The appeal has been filed with the delay of 12 days. Notice was served on the respondent. As the counsel for the

respondent has no objection, the delay had been condoned, and the appeal was numbered and posted for admission. Since both the counsel are

present, the second appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel on either side, as the question for decision falls in a narrow

campus.

The defendant in O.S. No. 166of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Ranipet is the appellant herein.

The respondent herein, who is the tenant under the appellant herein filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant,

her men and her agents from evicting the plaintiff institution from the schedule mentioned property.

The averment in the plaint is that the appellant herein is trying to evict the respondent herein in order to lease it out for higher rent and the

appellant further attempts to evict the respondent herein without following the due process of law. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

This claim of the respondent herein was opposed by the appellant herein.

However, the trial Court, by its Judgment and decree dated 9-4-1997, decreed the suit as prayed for. The relief granted is as follows :

(Vernacular matter omitted--Ed.)

The appellant herein preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 32 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District. The learned

Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. Hence, the second

appeal.

In the second appeal, the only question arises for consideration is as to whether a tenant is entitled for an order of permanent injunction

preventing the landlord from evicting him from the lease hold property.

Mr. Krishnasamy, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there cannot be any permanent injunction against the landlord from evicting

the tenant. If such an injunction is to be sustained, then, it will be an embargo on the right of the landlord in enjoying the property. Hence, the

judgments and decree of the Courts below cannot at all be sustained.

Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Subramanian fairly conceded that there cannot be any permanent injunction against the landlord from

evicting the tenant from the premises. Hence, the decree may be modified by stating that the landlord, the appellant cannot evict the tenant, the

respondent without due process of law.

This Court carefully considered the contentions of both the learned counsel. As stated already, the relief sought for in the plaint is one for

permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein, her men, and her agents from evicting the respondent institution from the scheduled mentioned

property. Hence, it is clear that the relief sought-for by the respondent is a permanent injunction against the landlord -- the appellant herein from

evicting the respondent herein. When, admittedly, such a relief cannot be granted, the decrees of the Courts below also cannot be sustained, since

it is an embargo on the right of the appellant to enjoy the property. Hence, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below cannot be sustained.

Further, there cannot be a permanent lease in favour of the respondent.

However, the Courts below have totally erred in granting such a decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from evicting the

respondent for ever. Though the counsel for the respondent is very fair in seeking for the modification of the decree, this Court is not inclined to

consider the same for the following reason.

Considering the fact that the suit was laid by the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from evicting the respondent for

ever, this Court is of the view that the respondent has resorted to this to prevent the appellant from claiming any enhanced rent. Admittedly, for the

past six years, there is no enhancement of the rent because of the pendency of the proceedings. The respondent having occupied the premises for

commercial purpose, he is duty bound to increase the rent every year. When this Court asked as to whether the respondent is willing to pay the

rent at Rs. 700/-p.m. in future, as the existing rent prior to the suit is Rs. 550/-, without even consulting his client, who was present in Court, Mr.

Subramanian, counsel for the respondent replied that it will be a commitment for the respondent. This is clear that the counsel had assumed the role

of the respondent.

As the counsel for the respondent unceremoniously rejected the offer of the Court which is in the interest of both the parties, this Court is also

rejecting his request to modify the decree of the Courts below. When the counsel for the respondent conceded that the decree of the trial Court as

confirmed by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained, the appeal has to be allowed. As the respondent initiated the proceeding with

deliberate intention of preventing the appellant from seeking any enhancement of rent or his eviction, this Court is of the view that the respondent

must be directed to pay the cost.

Accordingly, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The second appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees

Three thousand and five hundred only). The above C.M.P. is dismissed.