IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS No. 769 of 1997()
1. K.A.CHANDRASEKHARA MENON
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/02/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
A.S .NO.769 OF 1997
------------------------------------------
Dated 22nd February 2007
J U D G M E N T
Plaintiff in O.S.349/1994 on the file of
Principal Sub curt, North Paravur is the appellant.
Respondents are defendants. Respondents were tenant
of the building bearing door No.8/155 of Aluva
Municipality. Appellant purchased the rights of
building from the previous landlord Rosamma Jacob on
14/7/1992. At that time also respondents were the
building tenants. R.C.P.6/91 was filed by earlier
landlord to evict respondents was pending when
property was purchased by appellant. Order of eviction
granted by Rent Control Court was subsequently
confirmed by this court in C.R.P whereunder time was
granted to respondents to surrender vacant possession
of the building. Suit was filed by appellant
contending that respondents agreed to surrender the
building, at the time when appellant purchased the
building from original landlord and in violation of
undertaking respondents continued possession of
2
building and therefore respondents are liable to pay
damages. Rs.1,58,630/- was claimed as damages.
Respondents resisted the claim contending that landlord
tried to evict respondents when rent Control petition
was pending and therefore appellant is not entitled to
the damages sought for. Learned Munsiff on the evidence
dismissed the suit. It is challenging that dismissal
of suit this appeal is filed. In the appeal damages
claimed was reduced to Rs.50,000/-.
2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was
heard. Arguments of learned counsel appearing for
appellant was that this court in C.R.P filed by
respondents against the order of eviction did not
consider the question whether appellant is entitled to
the damages and appellant was persuaded to purchase
the building on the undertaking of respondent to
surrender and as they did not surrender, appellants are
entitled to the damages sought for and therefore
dismissal of the suit is unsustainable and appellant is
entitled to the decree.
3. On hearing learned counsel appearing for
appellant, I do not find any merit in the appeal.
Respondents are admittedly tenants of the assignor of
appellant. Respondents could be evicted only by due
3
process of law. In fact, when appellant purchased the
building rent control proceedings for eviction was
pending. In such circumstances, without getting an
order for eviction appellant could not have evicted the
respondents. So also, appellant is not entitled to
claim damages, so long as respondents are continuing
in lawful possession of the building as tenants. Even
though order of eviction was subsequently upheld by
Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as revisional
court, even when suit was filed respondents were
continuing in possession and C.R.P was dismissed only
thereafter. In such circumstances, learned Sub Judge
rightly found that appellant is not entitled to the
damages sought for. Appeal is bereft of bonafides.
Appeal is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.
4
=============================
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
JUDGMENT
A.S.No.769 OF 1997
22nd February 2007
============================