9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of tenancy agreement regarding verandah possession. 2. Determination of possession of verandah. 3. Legal significance of admissions in determining possession. 4. Cross-objections filed by respondent regarding the tenancy agreement. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute over the possession of a verandah in a building in Madras City. The appellant claimed that the respondent, a book-selling firm, was attempting to occupy the verandah, which was not part of the respondent's tenancy agreement. The trial court found in favor of the respondent, stating that the tenancy included the verandah. However, the appellate court disagreed, concluding that only four rooms were part of the respondent's tenancy, and the verandah was retained by the owner. 2. The appellate court confirmed the dismissal of the suit based on the aspect of possession. It found that the verandah was in the possession of the respondent at the time of the suit, as the appellant had not established possession. The appellant's argument that he had let out the verandah to another party was not accepted by the court, which relied on the appellant's and the second appellant's admissions to support its finding of possession. 3. The appellant challenged the appellate court's finding on possession, arguing that the admissions made by the appellants did not conclusively prove that the respondent was in possession of the verandah. The court emphasized that admissions must be unequivocal and comprehensive to support a legal determination. The court found that the admissions relied upon were insufficient to establish possession in favor of the respondent. 4. The respondent filed cross-objections challenging the appellate court's finding that the tenancy did not include the verandah. However, the court noted that under civil procedure rules, the respondent did not need to file cross-objections to support the lower court's decree. The appellate court's finding on the subject matter of the tenancy, based on property tax records and oral evidence, was upheld as legally sound, leading to the allowance of the second appeal in favor of the appellants. In conclusion, the judgment allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and granting a permanent injunction in favor of the appellants. The cross-objections filed by the respondent were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
|
