HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM COPN. LTD. Vs. T. ADITYA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants 1 and 2 and for recovery of a sum of Rs.53,78,400/- towards damages and for other reliefs.

(2.) The first defendant filed the above application to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by law and is also barred by limitation.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/first defendant that as per the averment in the plaint, the first respondent/plaintiff admitted that the tenancy between the applicant/first defendant and the respondent/plaintiff was determined by the issuance of notice dated 27.1.1983 and thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.2058 of 1984 before the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for eviction of the applicant from the suit property and in that suit, the applicant/first defendant filed I.A.No.13204 of 1984 under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 for purchasing the suit property and thereafter, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 10.9.2003 and consequentially, I.A.No.13204 of 1984 filed by the first defendant was also dismissed for default. As the tenancy was terminated as early as on 27.1.1983 and the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.2058 of 1984 for recovery of possession and that was allowed to be dismissed for default, the present suit for recovery of possession and for damages is clearly barred by law under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC and also under Article 67 of the Limitation Act. He, therefore, contended that under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, as between the landlord and tenant, when the tenancy is determined, the suit for recovery of possession ought to have been filed within 12 years from the date of determination of tenancy and in this case, tenancy was terminated by issuance of notice dated 27.1.1983 and the suit was filed only on 12.2.2010 after a period of 27 years from the date of termination of tenancy and therefore, the present suit is barred under Article 67 of the Limitation Act. He also submitted that it is admitted that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.2058 of 1984 for eviction against the same defendants and that the suit was dismissed for default and therefore, the present suit, without obtaining leave of the Court in the earlier suit, is not maintainable and is also barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC and Order 23, Rule 1 of CPC.