REYNOLD MENDEZ Vs. M/S. TATA TEA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint is that the plaint schedule building belongs to them; that the first defendant was a contractor undertaking construction works in the estate run by the plaintiff; that he was permitted to occupy the plaint schedule building for his residence on a licence arrangement; that the first defendant, who was bound to surrender the plaint schedule building when he ceases to be the estate contractor, refused to surrender the plaint schedule building when he ceased to be the estate contractor and that, instead, he inducted the second defendant in the plaint schedule building. The suit was, therefore, for a declaration of the ownership of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule building and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants.

(2.) At the time when the suit was instituted, Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited was running the estate. As the suit was instituted by the plaintiff, it was explained in the plaint that though they had leased out the estate and some of the buildings therein to Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited, they were retaining ownership in respect of some of the buildings in the estate including the plaint schedule building. After the institution of the suit, Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited got themselves impleaded in the suit as the additional second plaintiff stating that they have purchased the remaining buildings in the estate including the plaint schedule building also from the original plaintiff.

(3.) The first defendant contested the suit. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, it is stated by him that he was put in occupation of the plaint schedule building by the predecessor of the original plaintiff, namely Tata Finlay Limited, as a lessee and he is continuing as such in the building. The allegation in the plaint that the first defendant had inducted the second defendant in possession of the plaint schedule building has been denied by the first defendant. It is asserted by the first defendant that he is still in occupation of the plaint schedule building. The contention raised by the first defendant in the written statement was, therefore, that he being a building tenant, he can be evicted only under the relevant rent control statute. Though an application was filed by the first defendant seeking leave of the court to amend the written statement to incorporate a few additional contentions, the said application was dismissed by the court and the order passed in this regard by the court was confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6083 of 2009.