G VENKATESAN Vs. COMMISSIONER KANCHEEPURAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein filed a suit as plaintiff in O.S.No.176 of 2002, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram, seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) It was the case of the appellant before the trial Court that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that is located in the Road Margin Poromboke to the West of Kamatchi Amman Koil Post Office bearing Door No.1. The said road margin is quite unobjectionable and does not affect the traffic and further, it was claimed that the site is far away from the road. The respondent-the Commissioner, Kanchipuram Municipality, Kanchipuram, issued a notice dated Nil under Section 182(1) of the District Municipality Act. On receipt of the said notice, when the suit was filed in O.S.No.804 of 1987, the same was decreed by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. But, the relief with regard to declaratory portion was refused and for which, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.36 of 1995, which was allowed declaring that the plaintiff is the lessee under the defendant. When no further appeal was filed by the defendant as against any of the order passed by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court, the defendant cannot forcibly evict the plaintiff without following due process of law. It is also further submitted that the defendant has been receiving the lease amount. Besides, the plaintiff has been paying the electricity charges to the electricity department only on the permission granted by the defendant corporation. Under these circumstances, the defendant has no right to dispose of the plaintiff.

(3.) Opposing the same, the defendant filed a detailed written statement contending that the plaintiff is neither a lessee nor a licencee of the suit property. Though the plaintiff has obtained a decree, it is also admitted case that there is no bilateral agreement to allow the plaintiff to carry on any business in the suit property. Since the plaintiff has not become lawful licencee and his status is only a rank trespasser, the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant shall not be granted. On that basis, the trial Court, finally, dismissed the suit, with an observation that the plaintiff has already put up a tea shop in the objectinable peramboke area and further held that unless, the defendant takes any lawful course to evict the plaintiff, forcible eviction should not be followed. Aggrieved by the same, when an appeal was filed before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.23 of 2005, the same was dismissed, even without giving the benefit of observation given by the trial Court. As against, the present second appeal is filed.