R KARTHIKEYAN Vs. DIRECTOR BESTHESDA HOSPITAL AMBUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the judgment of the learned Subordinate judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District made in A. S. No. 45 of 2004,allowing the appeal filed by the respondents/defendants and dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, the appellants have brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) IT was a suit filed by the appellants herein against the two defendants, who are the respondents herein, seeking for a permanent injunction that the defendants should be restrained from opening or allowing to open a new canteen to public alleging that the plaintiffs are licensees in respect of the suit mentioned premises which belonged to the defendants and they took it on lease and they have been running a canteen from 1998 onwards and they have been paying monthly rent of Rs. 200/ -. The first plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 4000/- as advance, while the second plaintiff has spent a sum of rs. 20,000/- for improvement of the building. They have been making payment all along without any arrears whatsoever. They have also filed two suits in o. S. Nos. 76 of 2001 and 74 of 2001 restraining the defendants therein from vacating or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the respective shops. While the agreement entered into between the parties is in force, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are trying to allow the third parties to run other canteens within the same compound. Thus it would affect the entire business of the plaintiffs herein and hence they should be restrained by way of permanent injunction.

(3.) THE gist of the case of the plaintiffs was that both the plaintiffs were tenants in respect of two separate premises under the defendants for running their respective canteens. It is also admitted that two different suits were filed by the same plaintiffs against the defendants. It is a matter of surprise to note how both these plaintiffs had same cause of action in a suit like this. On this ground, the suit was liable to be rejected.