R RATHNASABHAPATHY CHETTIAR AND ORS Vs. P LAKSHMINARAYANA BHATT; CORPORATION OF MADRAS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ARULMIGHU GANGADHARESWARAR KOIL DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is filed seeking a direction to the defendants to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 10,72,000/= towards past damages and to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/= as compensation for the further acts of demolition of the A schedule property, a declaration that the property set out in the B schedule of the plaint as belonging to the plaintiffs, a direction directing the first defendant to deliver possession to the plaintiffs and to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/= per month towards future damages from the date of plaint till the date of payment of damages, a declaration that notice dated 6.12.1983 of the second defendant purporting to be under Section 258 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act of 1919 is null and void and a direction to the defendants to restore possession of the property set out in A schedule of the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the Trustees of S. Rathnavelu Chettiar Trust constituted under a registered Deed of Trust dated 18.5.1919. The land bearing the present door No. 76, Gangadhareswarar Koil Street, Purasawalkam was taken on lease from the Gangadhareswarar Koil Devasthanam under a registered deed of lease on 14.12.1909 by S. Rathnavelu Chettiar. He put up a valuable superstructure in the year 1910. Rathnavelu Chettiar executed a registered deed of indenture on 18.5.1919 whereby he declared and created Rathnavelu Chettiar Trust for the performance of religious, educational and secular charities. The leasehold right in the land vested in the Trustees appointed under the said Trust Deed. The Trustees were paying land rent to Gangadhareswarar Koil Devasthanam. The first defendant took out the premises set out in A schedule property on rent for carrying on business in Pharmaceutical Distribution business under the registered lease deed dated 7.4.1982. The third defendant, the Executive Officer acted in connivance of the first defendant and sought for possession of the land on the basis of a purported termination of the tenancy. Though 'A' schedule property was proposed to be inspected by the plaintiffs at the request of the first defendant, the latter has not cooperated for inspection. The plaintiffs representative inspected the premises in the month of November 1983 and found to their shock that the first defendant had demolished the extensive portions of A schedule property. Costly Burma Teak timber and other valuable materials like marble tiles, ornamental doors, frames and glass from the premises were removed and taken away by the first defendant. The plaintiffs came to understand that the said materials have been used for remodelling the B schedule property owned by the first defendant. A police complaint was given on 10.12.1983 on coming to know that the first defendant was further proceeding with the demolition of the premises in the guise of a notice of demolition received from the second defendant, Corporation of Madras. No notice was received by the plaintiffs from the Corporation. The superstructure in the A schedule property withstood even the unprecedented heavy rains and cyclones. The demolition notice was invited by the first defendant from the second defendant. Notice under Section 258 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act was given only to fence off, take down, secure or repair the structure if any danger is contemplated. The tenant has no power to demolish the superstructure belonging to his landlord. Further, the demolition notice issued under Section 258(1) is quite unwarranted. As per the lease arrangement the plaintiffs had with the first defendant, the latter was bound to keep and restore the property in a good condition. The third defendant, under notice dated 7.7.1983, informed the plaintiffs that the latter had lost their right under the City Tenants Protection Act. The plaintiffs were not evicted by due process of law nor was the possession of the land surrendered to temple authority. The unlawful act of the first defendant has caused extensive loss to the plaintiffs. The first defendant has demolished an extent of 3000 sqft in the first floor and 1000 sqft in the ground floor of A schedule property. The valuable materials like costly Burma Teak timber and other valuable materials like marble tiles, ornamental doors, frames and glass from the premises removed and taken away by the first defendant from the A schedule property has been used in the B schedule property. The plaintiffs seek for possession of B schedule property of the first defendant. On 18.4.1992, the first defendant brought about further demolition with lightening speed and dismantled the remaining building of A schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs seek for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) The second and third defendants have remained ex parte. The first defendant has contended in the written statement that he was not aware of the construction of the building set out in a schedule by the Trust. The plaintiffs never informed the first defendant that they were not the owners of the land. Even in the deed of lease, they had just asserted that they were the owners of the demised property. The building was not strong enough and the superstructure had to be re-built in order to make it habitable. It is true that the first defendant met the third defendant as the latter made enquiries about the occupation of the first defendant in the suit property. The first defendant could not use the suit premises for any purpose as the building was in a dilapidated condition. The proper condition of the building was not known to the first defendant as he had not seen the premises earlier. The fact remains that the first defendant actually commenced demolition of the premises on 10.12.1983 pursuant to the order issued to the second defendant on 6.12.1983. The demolition process was stopped as the plaintiffs preferred police complaint. The demolition was undertaken by the first defendant as there was a direction by the second defendant to demolish the building within ten days of receipt of the notice. There had been deterioration of the superstructure due to heavy rains that battered in December 1983. The condition of the suit premises even at the very inception of the tenancy was poor. The third defendant had already terminated the tenancy of the plaintiffs in respect of land of the premises described in A schedule. The third defendant, having assured the first defendant that the tenancy of the plaintiffs had been terminated, executed a fresh lease with the first defendant as the first defendant was in possession of the property. Therefore, the first defendant prays that the suit may be dismissed with costs.