R VARADARAJAN Vs. THIRUMANGAI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) Notice on the limited question of compensation to the respondents in respect of the building in question, was issued on August 6, 1996, on the premise that the appellant himself was in possession of the building. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the appellant has let out the building to one Jasmine Electricals on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the premises. In the rejoinder, it is admitted by the appellant in paragraph 8 which reads as under:

(3.) The admission thereby that he has let out the premises gets proved. One Mohd. Rafeeq filed O. S. No. 6/97 in the Court of the District Munsif of Cuddalore for injunction against the owner. Therein, he stated that he entered into an agreement of lease on March 11, 1987. Further fresh deed was executed on April 30, 1990. He claimed injunction on the basis of the directions issued by this Court. Thus it could be seen that the appellant has suppressed these material facts before getting the notice issued. Notice is accordingly withdrawn.