MUTHUREDDY THOTTAM RESIDENCE Vs. SARAVANA FOUNDATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First defendant is the revision petitioner. The first respondent filed the suit in O.S. No. 6231 of 2010 against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for permanent injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 herein from granting sewerage and water connection to the suit property in the occupation of the revision petitioner and also filed application in I.A. No. 11947 of 2010 for temporary injunction to the same effect and after giving notice to the petitioners as well as respondents 2 and 3 and after hearing their submissions, the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai granted an order of temporary injunction and aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed appeal in C.M.A. No. 48 of 2011 before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the same was also dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Chitra Sampath appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the members of the revision petitioner association are in possession of the suit property for more than 60 years and they are in settled possession of the suit property and therefore, they have got every right to get water sewerage connection to the members and even as per the judgments rendered in C.S. No. 911 of 1984 filed by G. Mahalingam and 21 others, the members of the petitioner association were found to be in possession of the properties and in O.S.A. No. 206 of 1993, it was held that the predecessor-in-title of the first respondent was directed to evict the members of the revision petitioner association in accordance with law, and till they were evicted, they are entitled to be in possession of the property and they are entitled to have the water and sewerage connection and as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India, every citizen has got a right to live with all civic amenities and right to shelter does not mean a mere right to have roof over one's head and the State is bound to provide all civil amenities to a person in occupation of a property and therefore, till the members of the revision petitioners are evicted in accordance with law, they are entitled to have water and sewerage connection and without appreciating the same, the courts below granted injunction in favour of the first respondent and therefore, the order of injunction is liable to be vacated. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in CHAMELI SINGH v. STATE OF U.P., 1996 2 SCC 549, RANI MOHANRAJ AND ANOTHER v. P. RAJARATHINAM, 1999 2 LW 757 and TIRUCHIRAPALLI PALPORUL VIRKUM THOZHILALAR SANGAM v. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF TRICHY, 1998 2 CTC 610 in support of her contention.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that in O.S.A. No. 206 of 1993, the Division Bench of this court held that the members of the revision petitioner association are squatters and they have no legal right upon the land of the first respondent and therefore, when the members of the revision petitioner have no legal right to squat on the property, they cannot be given the water and sewerage connection and that would amount to giving premium to the wrong doers and therefore, having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court rendered in O.S.A. No. 206 of 1993, the members of the revision petitioner are not entitled to have any indulgence from this court. He further submitted that both the courts below have concurrently held that the members of the revision petitioners are not entitled to have water and sewerage connection and such concurrent findings of fact need not be disturbed in this revision. He further submitted that if the members of the revision petitioner are entitled to establish their right to be in possession of the property as claimed by them, during trial, thereafter, the court can decide about the grant of injunction and till they establish their right to be in possession of the property, they are not entitled to have any indulgence from this court and therefore, the order of injunction granted by the court below need not be disturbed and the revision be dismissed.