DAMODRAN Vs. THANKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S. No. 1040 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Cherthala, are the revisions petitioners. Plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the plaint schedule shop room and for not to evict the petitioners otherwise than in due process of law. Along with the suit. I.A. No. 4015 of 1999 was filed for temporary injunction. The building is owned by the first defendant. One of the rooms in the building was leased to the first plaintiff by the first defendant on 22.3.1980. The plaintiff was doing business in the shop room. The first defendant and the first plaintiff are co-brothers. The first defendant was demanding to vacate the premises and the plaintiff had refused to vacate the same. Since the plaintiff found that a portion of the southern wall of the building was found demolished, he filed a complaint before the Vyapari Vyavasaya Samithi, which is the association of traders, and the association lodged a complaint before the police. The plaintiffs put sheets in the portion which was removed. The defendants questioned the authority of the plaintiffs to put sheets. According to the petitioners, the defendants also threatened to demolish the building and obstruct the conduct of buisiness. Therefore the suit was filed for the relief already mentioned earlier.

(2.) The defendants filed objections to the application for interim injunction. It is stated that the plaintiffs had kept the rent in areas. The plaint schedule building was in a dilapidated condition and the petitioners had not maintained the plaint schedule building. The first defendant had filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for demolishing the building on 22-12-1999 and sent registered notice to the first plaintiff for vacating the room. It is also stated in the objection that the defendants have no intention to demolish the building or evict the petitioners by force.

(3.) While the injunction was in force, the building was said to be demolished on 26.12.1999 at 5 a.m. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 2 and 3 demolished the building on that day. Since the act of demolition was done during X-mas vacation, petitioners filed an application, I.A. No. 20 of 2000 immediately after reopening of court for a direction to restore status quo of the plaint schedule shop room in the place of the demolished shop room. The plaintiffs had filed a complaint before the police. According to the defendants, the building collapsed on account of its old age and it was not destroyed by them.