P KALIMUTHU Vs. COMMISSIONER BODINAYAKANUR MUNICIPALITY BODINAYAKANUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the submissions made by Mr. S. Sethuraman, learned counsel representing the appellant who was the plaintiff in the original suit before the trial Court and the appellant before the first appellate Court.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the suit 'a' schedule and 'b' schedule properties belong to the respondent Municipality. The suit 'a' schedule property was originally leased out to the appellant herein for a period of three years from 01. 01. 1994 to 31. 12. 1996 by conducting public auction. The said 'a' schedule property was taken on lease by the appellant for running a hotel. As the 'a' schedule property was facing a small lane, the appellant wanted to have an entrance from the Bazaar Street. Hence the suit 'b' schedule property was also allowed to be used by the appellant as an annex to the original lease hold property, namely the plaint 'a' schedule property on payment of an additional rent of Rs. 450/- per month. By efflux of time, the lease in favour of the appellant came to an end on 31. 12. 1996. The appellant who chose to surrender the 'a' schedule property on 31. 12. 1996 continued to occupy the plaint 'b' schedule property. It was the contention of the respondent that at the time of allowing the appellant to use the suit 'b' schedule property as an appurtenant to the 'a' schedule property originally leased out to the appellant, specific conditions were imposed to the effect that no construction should be made on the 'b' schedule property and that as and when demanded by the respondent Municipality, the 'b' schedule property should also be surrendered. While so, since the appellant failed to surrender the 'b' schedule property along with the 'a" schedule property on the expiry of lease, the respondent Municipality took steps to evict the appellant from the 'b' schedule property, for which a notice dated 16. 10. 1998 marked as Ex. A. 17 was also issued. After the receipt of the said notice, the appellant gave a letter dated 27. 10. 1998 marked as Ex. B. 1 undertaking to vacate and surrender 'b' schedule property within 15 days thereafter. However, the appellant chose to file the present suit for a bare injunction against the respondent Municipality not to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'b' schedule property by taking coercive steps to evict the appellant.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur tried the matter after framing the following two issues:-