S RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. THANGAMUTHU NATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 2 to 4 in O. S. No. 184 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, tanjore are the petitioners in C. R. P. No. 2565 of 1989. THE first defendant in the said suit is the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 277 of 1990. THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 184 of 1987 referred above is the first respondent in both the civil revision petitions. THE first defendant in the said suit is the second respondent in C. R. P. No. 2565 of 1984. THE defendants 2 to 5 in the suit are the respondents 2 to 5, in C. R. P. No. 277 of 1990. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, hereinafter called the Act, for directing the defendants 1 to 4 to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff with future profits. THE case of the plaintiff is as follows: THE first defendant had taken on lease a large extent of vacant land bearing T. S. 1469 for 99 years from the Tanjore Municipality under the lease deeds in 1926 and 1927. THE 1st defendant has put up construction in a portion of the site. A vacant site under the leasehold of the 1st defendant measuring 105' ; east to west and 25' ; north to south was leased to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant for a period of 20 years to put up a building to carry on hotel business. Originally under the lease deed dated 19. 6. 1967 an extent east to west 80' ; and north south 25' ; was leased on a monthly rental of Rs. 400. Soon after, another 25' ; west of the portion demised was also leased out and also a right to use the well and latrine. THE total rent payable was also agreed at Rs. 525, THE terms of the lease are: (a) It is to remain for a period of 20 years from 19. 6. 1987. (b) THE total rent payable is Rs. 525 per month. (c) THE plaintiff will put up the necessary building at his cost and pay the municipal tax. (d) THE plaintiff is to put up a building at a cost of rs. 35,000 and on the expiry of the lease the 1st defendant will have the option to purchase the same at 3% depreciation. (e) Option is given to plaintiff to demolish the building and deliver vacant site. (f) THE lease can be renewed by mutual consent. THEre are other terms of the lease which may not be relevant for the present. THE plaintiff put up a pucca terraced building and asbestos shed and was conducting a hotel in the premises. Subsequently he entered into a partnership with 10 persons including defendants 2 to 4 and was conducting the hotel business under the name and style of' ; New Saraswathi Cafe, the 5th defendant herein. Subsequently some partners resigned and the plaintiff carried on business with 5 other partners. THE plaintiff granted licence to the 5th defendant partnership of which plaintiff is a partner, to carry on the business in the suit property till 18. 6. 1987. Thus the plaintiff was in continuous actual or constructive possession of the suit property, through the 5th defendant. THE period of the lease of the site in favour of the plaintiff came to an end on 18. 6. 1987. THE 1st defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff on 23. 1. 1987 calling upon the plaintiff to deliver possession of the site and building offering to pay for the building as per the covenant in the lease deed or to demolish the building and give vacant possession. THE plaintiff sent a reply on 24. 2. 1987 requesting to renew the lease as per the covenant in the lease deed and also claimed rights under the City Tenants Protection Act, to purchase the leasehold rights of the 1st defendant. A rejoinder was sent by the 1st defendant refusing the renewal, and denying the plaintiffs rights and stated that he will take proceedings for eviction. Some slight misunder standings arose between the plaintiff and some of the partners of the said New saraswathi Cafe. Taking advantage of this, the 1st defendant entered into a lease arrangement with defendants 2 to 4, without obtaining possession of the building and site from the plaintiff. In the said lease deed dated 19. 6. 1987 the 1st defendant falsely held itself out to be the owner of the building. Admittedly the plaintiff had not surrendered possession to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant is not the owner of the building. Under the lease deeds in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 the 1st defendant has purported to lease out the building as owner. THE partnership' ; New saraswathi Cafe' ; of which the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 and some others are partners, is the licensee of the plaintiff in so far as the superstructure is concerned. Defendants 2 to 4 in active collusion with the 1st defendant and exploiting their position as partners of' ; New saraswathi Cafe' ; in actual charge of day to day administration, have been creating records to defeat the lawful right and enjoyment of the plaintiff. In pursuance of such manipulated records, defendants 2 to 4 having obtained a void and invalid lease in their favour in their individual capacity, in respect of the building, are giving out that their possession is no longer as the partners of' ; New Saraswathi Cafe' ; and that they are in possession in their individual capacity under the first defendant and' ; New Saraswathi Cafe' ; of plaintiff can have no right over the same. THE 1st defendant thus purported to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff in active collusion with the defendants 2 to 4 taking the law in their own hands. THE plaintiff has granteda licence to' ; New Saraswathi Cafe' ; the 5th defendant of which he is a partner, to use the building 18. 6. 1987. THE defendants 2 to 4 can have right of user in the property only as partners of New Saraswathi Cafe. THEy cannot disrupt the enjoyment of the plaintiff. M/s. New Saraswathi Cafe is added as a pro forma party against whom the plaintiff is not seeking relief in this suit. THE first defendant cannot dispossess the plaintiff of his own accord and deal with the property. THE plaintiff thus being dispossessed on 19. 6. 1987 without his consent and not with due process of law is entitled to recover possession of the property. * * * [paragraphs 3 to 6 omitted - Ed. ]

(3.) THE evidence in this case discloses that the plaintiff granted only permission to the fifth defendant-partnership firm in which the plaintiff, the defendants 2 to 4 and others are partners, to carry on the partnership business in the suit property and that he was in possession of the suit property through the partners who are actually carrying on the business of the partnership firm. THE evidence in this case also discloses that by the notice Ex. A-8 dated 6. 6. 1987 the plaintiff terminated the permission granted to the firm to use the building for partnership business and subsequently the partnership was dissolved. On 19. 6. 1987 the defendants 1 to 4 entered into lease agreements Exs. A-10 and A-11 in and by which defendants 2 to 4 became tenants under the first defendant in respect of the suit property viz. , the vacant land including the building. THE first defendant by executing the lease agreements Exs. A-10 and A-11 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 deprived the plaintiff of his constructive possession of the suit property without his consent and in a manner otherwise than in due course of law. THE execution of the lease deeds Exs. A-10 and A-11 by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4 amounts to an injury caused to the rights available to the plaintiff under Ex. A-l and in such circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to the relief provided under Sec. 6of the Act against the first defendant and defendants 2 to 4, who are claiming the suit property through the 1st defendant. THErefore, the lower court rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property under sec. 6 of the Act.