RAJENDRAN Vs. NAGERCOIL MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this CMP has filed the suit in O.S. No. 200 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Nagercoil against the respondent herein praying for the relief of declaration of his leasehold right over the plaint scheduled property and consequential relief of injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent auctioned the leasehold right of the plaint scheduled property for a period of one year from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993 for the financial year 1992-93. THE petitioner participated in the said auction and he was the highest bidder. As the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 10,92,000/- the lease was confirmed by the Municipal Council in favour of the plaintiff. Though the annual lease amount was for Rs. 10,92,000/- the Municipality collected the amount as monthly rent from the petitioner. After the confirmation the petitioner was asked to sign in a lease deed prepared by the respondent and that the petitioner was directed to pay four months rent at the time of execution of the lease deed and the balance by way of monthly rent for the succeeding months. For subsequent financial years i.e., 1993-94 and 1994-95 leasehold rights were given to the petitioner on the revised rate of Rs. 12,19,000/- and Rs. 18,87,000/- respectively. For the year 1995-96, the respondent has notified fresh auction for the leasehold right. THE petitioner had approached the respondent and informed them that the notification bringing the leasehold right of the plaint scheduled property is illegal and the respondent has no right to bring it for auction. For the leasehold rights relating to the plaint scheduled property the petitioner has submitted two representations dated 1.2.1995 and 10.2.1995. THE respondent did not send any reply. Hence the suit has been filed by the applicant along with an Interlocutory Application No .400 of 1995, praying for an injunction pending disposal of the suit. THE petitioner further prayed that he must be allowed to continue to occupy the leasehold property by increasing the lease amount by 15% or any reasonable amount as may be fixed by the court.

(2.) THE District Munsif, Nagercoil had initially granted injunction on 29.3.1995 and posted the matter for hearing on 6.4.1995. On 6.4.1995, the respondent's counsel filed vakalat and also counter. THE District Munsif was inclined to take up the matter for arguments on the same day as the advocates were boycotting the court. THE petitioner was not in a position to persuade his lawyer to make his submissions in court. But however, the Counsel for the respondent attempted to persuade the court to hear the mat ter. But the court could not proceed with the hearing as the other counsel were creating a scene. Hence the case was posted on 10.4.1995 and on that date the District Munsif had made an endorsement that he is awaiting orders from the District Judge, Kanniyakumari since on 6.4.1995 he had sought for the direction from the District Judge for transferring the matter to any other court. THE suit was transferred to District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and on 19.4.1995, the application was called. THE suit was renumbered as O.S.200 of 95. On that day also when the counsel for the respondent attempted to make his submissions he was not allowed to advance his arguments and the petitioner being an illiterate depend only on his advocate and he was not in a position to do anything. THE Municipal Commissioner in person made his representation to the court and the district Munsif, Kuzhithurai adjourned the matter to 24.4.1995 either to continue the argument or threatened to dismiss the application. This petition for transfer has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that at Padmanabhapuram there was no objection for the appearance of lawyer from outside the State and hence if the suit is transferred to Padmanabhapuram the petitioner may be in a position to engage the counsel from Kerala and conduct the Proceedings.

(3.) ON 7.4.1995 the endorsement is as follows: Vakalat for respondent 7.4.1995 returned for want of A.W.S. ON 6.4.1995. From the above endorsement it is clear that the petitioner had appeared in person and his argument was part-heard. At that time some of the advocates had shouted that the respondent's counsel should come out of the Court and prevented the further hearing of the matter. Hence the District Munsif had made the request for the transfer of the case to some other court. When the endorsements dated 29.3.1995, heard the petitioner Documents perused and 7.4.95 entracted above very clear that the petitioner had represented his case in person before the court below, it is not open to him now to plead that he is an illiterate person and he is not in a position to putforth his case. The entire objection by advocates before the court below is for the appearance of the respondent's counsel. When that be so, the District Munsif, Nagercoil ought to have proceeded with the hearing the case or adjourned the matter to enable the parties to be represent by their counsel. Knowing fully well that the advocates in the entire District are boycotting the courts, there is no useful purpose of transferring the case from Nagercoil to Kuzhithurai. The action of the District Munsif requesting the District Judge, Kanniyakumari to transfer the case is unwarranted.