Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mandatory injunctions in G.Rengarajan @ Ravi vs K.N.S.Gopal ... Sole on 3 February, 2011Matching Fragments
The defendant-G.Rengarajan in O.S.Nos.7975 and 7974 of 2005 filed the S.A.Nos.758, 759 and 760 of 2009 inveighing the common judgement and decrees 31.12.2008 passed by the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S.Nos.420, 421, 481 of 2005 confirming the common judgement and decrees dated 20.6.2008 passed by the III Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.Nos.7975, 7974 and 7975 of 2005, which were filed by the respondents herein seeking mandatory injunctions and damages as against the said Rengarajan/appellant herein and S.A.No.757 of 2009 is filed by the said G.Rengarajan, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4687 of 2005, inveighing the common judgement and decrees dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Principal City Court, Chennai in A.S.No.496 of 2008 confirming the common judgement and decrees dated 20.6.2008 passed by the III Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.4687 of 2005, which was filed seeking prohibitory injunction as against the respondents herein.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said common judgement and decrees, the said Rengarajan filed these four second appeals, contending inter alia thus:
(i) The Courts below fell into error in not treating the said G.Rengarajan @ Ravi as a tenant in the suit properties and that he was not a mere licensee, occupying them.
(ii) There was business transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants and a partnership also emerged between them. However, ignoring all those facts, the said G.Rengarajan-the appellant herein was treated only as a permissive occupier and on the strength of the alleged cancellation notice, mandatory injunctions were granted as against him for removing his belongings from the premises concerned, referred to supra.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant would put forth and set forth his arguements thus:
(a) The concepts 'licence' and 'lease' have not been properly appreciated and understood by the Courts below and quite antithetical to the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court, reported in (i) 2004(3) CTC 314 C.M.BEENA AND ANOTHER V. P.N.RAMACHANDRA RAO; and (ii) 1998(I) CTC 195 R.M.SUNDARAM @ MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM AND ANOTHER, the Courts below held as though the appellant herein was the licensee and whereupon mandatory injunctions were granted as against him.
19. Hence, I am of the considered view that no substantial question of law regarding the finding of fact rendered by the Courts below would arise. Accordingly, these second appeals are dismissed, however, with a modification, in view of the endorsement made by the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, that the pre-suit damages awarded by the first appellate Court shall stand set aside. I make it clear that it is open for the respondents (plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.7974 and 7975 of 2005) to file necessary application to get the damages quantified as per law before the trial Court for the period between the date of filing of the suits till the mandatory injunctions are complied with by Rengarajan or the mandatory injunctions are enforced. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.