GEORGE VEERAMPULLY Vs. PANDURANG DAMU KAMAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the framing of two additional issues by the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco in Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A. The impugned Order dtd. 7/4/2021 was passed on an application at Exhibit 131.

(2.) It will be appropriate to deal with few facts before considering the controversy. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff and the Respondent is the original Defendant. The Petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A, for seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from interfering with possession of the suit premises and for mandatory injunction permitting the Defendant to restore the supply of electricity disconnected in the leased suit premises. Alternatively, the suit sought a direction to the Electricity Department, Cortalim, to issue fresh electricity connection in respect to the suit premises. A Decree is also sought in a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 towards the loss suffered for twenty months at the rate of ?20,000/- per month till electricity was reconnected. The suit came to be filed in and around April 2012.

(3.) It is the Plaintiff's case that he has been working at Vasco da Gama since 1974, as a carpenter and employed by one Devraj. Later he was a customer of M/s. D. R. Kamat and Brothers at Cortalim and was acquainted with one Damu Kamat. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Damu Kamat had started making furniture in the name of 'Kamat Furniture' at Cortalim and opposite to his timber depot office at Cortalim. It is contended that Damu Kamat had become friendly with the Plaintiff and had allowed the Plaintiff to use the suit premises admeasuring 87 square metres under an oral agreement since July 1974. The premises is said to also have appurtenant open land on two sides admeasuring 170 square metres thereby totaling to 257 square metres. Rent of Rs.30.00 per month was allegedly agreed upon for occupying the premises; that the same came to be increased to about Rs.100.00 in the year 1984. It is the Plaintiff's case that he has been carrying on business of making furniture at the said premises and would also buy the requisite quantity of timber from Damu Kamat. The Plaintiff has claimed that he was carrying on business under the name of "George Industry " and he held registration with the Directorate of Industries as a SSI Unit. He was assessed to Central Sales Tax and also holds No Objection Certificate issued by the Directorate of Health Services. He has relied upon all those documents of registrations and certificates in the plaint. It is the Plaintiff's contention that having established a good business, he had acquired certain machinery which he installed at the site. The Defendant took no objection to the same and the continued use of the machines since the carpentry business was established and he had complied with statutory requirements including Trade Tax which was payable to the Village Panchayat at Cortalim. It is his case that, in the month of May 2010, when the Defendant went to pay the rent, the Defendant demanded a rent of Rs.5,000.00 per month since he realized that the Plaintiff was earning lakhs of rupees from the furniture business. Thereupon, disputes arose. According to the Plaintiff, till May 2010, he had paid all the rent that was due and thereafter continued to pay rent by money order which was returned. In June 2010, the Defendant and his son apparently trespassed into the suit premises and removed the fuse from the fuse box thereby disconnecting the electricity. A complaint was then filed with the Police and the Electricity Department which permitted replacement of the fuse, which the Plaintiff did. Once again, the fuse came to be removed by the Defendant forcibly resulting in the complaint being reiterated with the Verna Police Station. The Plaintiff claims that he was thereafter threatened by unknown persons. Later persons claiming to be from the Electricity Department, visited the premises and disconnected the electricity and took away the meter. Thus, the Plaintiff was without an electricity connection which, according to him, is caused to be disconnected illegally by the Defendant causing enormous inconvenience and loss of business. Fearing eviction illegally, the Plaintiff filed the suit claiming the aforesaid relief.