TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD NORTH DIVISION DINDIGUL THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER DINDIGUL TOWN Vs. A K M G ANGUCHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S.No.75 of 1984 before the Sub Court, Dindigul are the appellants. THE plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1 lakh being the damages caused by fire to the building, but whereas, the trial Court awarded only Rs.40,000 by the decree and judgment dated 29.1.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: THE first plaintiff is the owner of the suit building and he had let out the same to the second plaintiff, who in turn had sublet the suit property to the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs.925. THE defendants became tenants on and from 1.3.1983. It is stated that the suit building is measuring 85 feet north to south and 45 feet east to west and it is a good, strong and sound building. THE front portion is a tiled varandha and next to it there is a hall and there were rooms on either side of the said hall and there is a big hall measuring 20 feet x 20 feet and also tiled hall. THEre were two more tiled rooms. THE building was constructed with brick built walls and plastered and the walls were having 1 1/2 feet width. A good and cost varieties of timber were used for the doors and windows. THE building was in a good condition when it was let out to the defendants. On 9.6.1984 at about 3 a.m. fire broke out in the suit building and the entire building was burnt. Information was given to the fire service and after struggling for 2 1/2 hours they extinguished the fire. Due to the fire, 3/4th of the building were completely damaged. It is stated that the fire took place only due to the carelessness and negligence of the defendant and therefore, the plaintiffs made a claim of Rs.1 lakh being the damages caused to the building.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned advocate for the respondent/plaintiffs has submitted that the entire building was taken on lessee by the defendant and except defendants no one can have access to the building. If the building was not in a safe condition and if the wirings were also not proper, the defendants could have brought these things to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and when especially the defendants being the electricity department, they know much better than any one else or otherwise of the wiring and they would have brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, but whereas, they have not any point of time, complained of the building condition or the wiring and that therefore, it could be held that the building was in a sound and good condition and the wiring was also properly done and the fire occurred only due to the negligence and carelessness act of the defendants.