9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit notice and the suit are bad for want of identification of the property. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for eviction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Identification of the Property: The court addressed the defendants' objection regarding the identification of the property in the suit notice and plaint. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had not properly described the respective portions occupied by the defendants. However, the court noted that the property was described as "shop portion in premises bearing Door No. 37 (Old No. 100), Godown Street, Madras-1." It was established that no separate numbers were assigned to the 17 tenants, and all were identified by their names and occupation of a portion. The court found that there was no difficulty in identifying the premises occupied by the tenants, as no objection was raised at the stage of notice, in the written statement, or in the grounds of appeal. The court concluded that the description was sufficient to identify the property under Order VII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and rejected the defendants' contention. 2. Entitlement to Decree for Eviction: The court examined whether the plaintiff, Haji Essa Abba Sait Endowments, a public charitable trust, was entitled to a decree for eviction. The trust sought to evict the defendants to demolish the existing dilapidated building and construct a new one to generate higher rental income, which was necessary to fulfill the trust's charitable objectives. The court noted that the building was over 100 years old, the rent collected was meager, and the trust needed more income to perform its activities. The court found the plaintiff's intention to put the property to better use reasonable and acceptable. The trust was exempted from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, by a Government Order, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in S. Kandasamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu. The court confirmed the trial court's judgment directing the defendants to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court directing the defendants to vacate the shop portions and hand over vacant possession. The appeals filed by the plaintiff for damages were also dismissed, as the claim for damages was not substantiated by evidence. The court closed the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (C.M.Ps.).
|
