S RAMESH BABU Vs. R BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.14/2000 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 25.9.2000 allowing C.M.A.No.76/2000 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate of Coimbatore reversing the order dated 30.6.2000 in I.A.No. 21/2000 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

(2.) The case in brief for the disposal of the revision is as follows: The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. He also filed I.A.No. 21/2000 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. He took the suit property on lease from the second defendant on 9.12.99 for non-residential purpose, for a period of 11 months. The monthly rent payable is Rs.1,000/- and an advance is also paid. He is manufacturing foundary chemials and building materials. The foundary is situated at Perianaickenpalayam. The suit property was taken on lease to stock the foundary and building materials. It is situated on the eastern site of north south Kalingarayan Street abutting the main road measuring 97 feet X 12 feet totally 1164 sq.ft. On the north of the suit property, there is a 4 feet passage to reach the rear side of the suit property.

(3.) The first defenant is a tenant under the second defendant. The first defendant is using the premises as godown to stock parcels and packets. The first defendant had access from the main road to the premises to the 4 feet passage. The plaintiff is not causing any hindrance to the ingress and eggress to the 4 feet passage. The first defendant is operating omni buses from Coimbatore and he is a rich and influential person. The second defendant is also hand in glove with the first defendant and interfering in the enjoyment of the plaintiff. The first defendant is not entitled to use the property to gain ingress or eggress to his rented premises situated on the rear side. The first defendant is now trying to take the buses inside the property and openly proclaimed that he would some how dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. If the plaintiff is forcefully dispossessed, he would be put to much loss and hardship. The plaintiff has got prima-facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour.