KODIYAMBAL AMMAL Vs. N V ANANTHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 1068: of 1982, District Munsifs Court, Poonamallee,. is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The suit was instituted by the respondent: herein praying for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and her men, agents and servants from interfering with the right of the respondent to carry out the repairs to the premises bearing door No. 33, South Mada Street, Villivakkam. According to the case of the respondent, originally the property was let out by Doraiswamy Mudaliar, the husband of the petitioner, to the respondent in 1969on a monthly rent of Rs. 70 and on his death in 1979, the respondent attorned the tenancy to the petitioner, who is the wife of Doraiswamy Mudaliar, and had been paying the rents as well upto 5th April, 1980 in person. Thereafter, the rents, according to the respondent, had been sent by money-order and the rents upto March, 1982 had also been paid in that manner. The further case of the respondent was that the premises in his occupation required to be immediately repaired and this was communicated by him to the petitioner and thereupon the petitioner is stated to have directed the respondent to retain the rents from April, 1982 for four months with a view to carry out the repairs to the premises and submit accounts also therefor, which was agreed to by the respondent. The Corporation of Madras, according to the respondent, had also issued a notice to him with reference to the condition of the building in his occupation and directed that it should be repaired within seven days. Pursuant to the agreement and also the notice issued by the Corporation of Madras, the respondent stated that he commenced the repairs to the premises and the petitioner objected to the same and in spite of the respondent having explained the position to the petitioner, the petitioner, with the idea of evicting the respondent from the premises, was attempting to prevent the respondent from carrying out the repairs to the premises. The petitioner, according to the respondent, had no right whatever to object to the carrying out of the repairs by the respondent and the objections raised by the petitioner were characterised as unwanted, unreasonable and contrary to her own interest. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that the respondent instituted the suit for the relief set out earlier.

(2.) In I.A. No. 2139 of 1982 in O.S. No. 1068 of 1982, the respondent prayed for an interim injunction restraining the petitioner, her men, agent, etc., from tresspassing into the premises in the occupation of the respondent and from preventing the respondent from carrying out the repairs to the premises. In the affidavit in support of that application, the respondent reiterated his cause as set out in the plaint and stated that the petitioner, who had allowed him to carry out the repairs, had later raised objections at the instance of other persons and that the repairs had to be carried out forthwith as otherwise, he will be put to inconvenience and loss owing to the commencement of the rainy season.

(3.) That application was resisted by the petitioner disputing the agreement for the accumulation of the rent and the carrying out of the repairs to the premises by the respondent. The stand taken by the respondent that originally the petitioner allowed the repairs to be carried on and that subsequently she was objecting to the same was refuted. Reiterating her right to carry out the repairs to the premises in the occupation of the respondent, the petitioner stated that the condition of the building was such that it required almost total demolition and that, therefore, the carrying on of the repairs to the premises would only be an utter waste. An objection was also raised with reference to the maintainability of the suit as well as the application for injunction. Stating that the respondent was in arrears of rent from April, 1982, onwards the petitioner stated that the alleged accumulation of rents for the purposes of carrying out the repairs was false and that the amount, if expended on repairs, will be totally unproductive and no case as such under the circumstances was made out for the grant of injunction as prayed for by the respondent.