UNION OF INDIA Vs. APPARSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants before the courts below are the appellants herein. THE respondent herein filed the suit, O.S.No.731 of 1982 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,750 with interest by way of damages. It is the ease of the plaintiff that the appellants herein are the tenants in respect of the suit property and on 26.1.1979 during the anti-merger movement, the building was subjected to attack by a man which was agitating against the merger movement. THE doors, fans, tube lights, bulbs, etc., in the building were damaged and immediately thereafter, the appellants have deserted the house without even informing the plaintiff. Since the defendants did not take proper care, they are liable to pay the damages and hence the suit.

(2.) THE appellants herein filed the written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff stating that subsequent to the damages to the building, the defendants are not in occupation of the building, but, however, the plaintiff filed a petition before the Rent controller in H.R.C.O.P. No.9 of 1981 for eviction on the ground of wilful default. On 23.2.1981 the second defendant paid the rents till that date and handed over vacant possession on the understanding that the plaintiff will not claim any damages. THE trial court, after considering the evidence, has decreed the suit on the ground that clause 8 of the lease deed does not prevent the plaintiff for asking for damages. As against the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.205 of 1983 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. THE II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry has also concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. THE present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the plaintiff had vacated the premises after the date of incident viz., on 26.1.1978. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the building is fit for habitation and in spite of that the defendants had vacated the building or deserted the building. The only grievance of the plaintiff is that he has not been informed about the damage to the building immediately thereafter by the defendants. Because of the failure on the part of the defendants to inform the plaintiff, it may not be proper to ask them to pay the damages.