Loading...

M/S.Combined Engineering vs The Bishop Of Chengalpattu on 30 March, 2010

Madras High Court
M/S.Combined Engineering vs The Bishop Of Chengalpattu on 30 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-03-2010

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN 

C.R.P.(PD) NO.3382 of 2009 and
M.P.No.1 of 2009

1.M/s.Combined Engineering
Industries and Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. By its Managing Director having
office at No.98, St.Mary's Road,
Abhiramapuram, Chennai-600 018.

2.Mrs.Banumathi Sundararaman				.. Petitioners.

Versus

The Bishop of Chengalpattu
Diocese of Chengalpattu
(formerly Arch-Bishop of 
Madras-Mylapore) Rep. By its
Property Administrator, for the time
being Rev.Fr.Thomas Mundackal 
having office at Bishop's House,
Timmavaram, Kancheepuram District,
Pincode-631 501.						.. Respondent.


PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order and decretal order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur, in I.A.No.3370 of 2007 in O.S.No.58 of 2007, dated 28.7.2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur. 





	   	For Petitioners:	 Mr.R.Yasod Vardhan 
					 Senior Advocate for
					 Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar

		For Respondent: 	No Appearance
					
O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 28.7.2009, made in I.A.No.3370 of 2007, in O.S.No.58 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.

2. It has been stated that the petitioners had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.3370 of 2007, praying that the petitioners may be permitted to deposit the arrears of rent, for three years, amounting to a sum of Rs.1000/- before the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur. The suit, in O.S.No.58 of 2007, had been filed by the respondent, praying for a judgment and decree against the defendants, directing the defendants in the suit to deliver vacant possession of the suit property, to the plaintiff therein, who is the respondent in the present civil revision petition, and to direct the defendants, who are the petitioners in the present petition, to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, for the use and occupation of the premises in question, from the date of the filing of the suit, till the date of the delivery of the suit property, and for a permanent injunction against the petitioners from alienating, encumbering, sub-letting or transferring the suit property in favour of any third parties.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur, had passed an erroneous order holding that the petitioners had not filed any document to show that they had paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the Advocate for the respondent, as claimed by them. He had also held that, in view of the specific pleadings of the respondent that the petitioners are in willful default of the rent, the request of the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent cannot be allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had placed before this Court a certified copy of the `A’ Diary Extract, wherein, an endorsement is found as follows:

“Enquiry. Heard the petitioner counsel Ex.P1 to P4 marked. For respondent arguments 10.7.2009.”

4. From the said extract it is seen that Exs.P-1 to P-4 had been marked. However, the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur, had held in his order, dated 28.7.2009, made in I.A.No.3370 of 2007, that no documents had been marked on behalf of the petitioners in support of their claims. Further, the reasons stated by the learned Additional District Munsif, for refusing to accept the prayer of the petitioners, to deposit the arrears of rent, is not sustainable in the eye of law. The reason that the petitioners have not been in a position to prove their claim that a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- had been paid to the Advocate for the respondent cannot be a valid reason for rejecting the application filed by the petitioners.

5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent and no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

6. In view of the averments made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the order, dated 28.7.2009, made in I.A.No.3370 of 2007, in O.S.No.58 of 2007, is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to deposit Rs.1000/-, as arrears of rent for three years, as prayed for, in I.A.No.3370 of 2007. However, the request of the petitioners for payment of the yearly rent of Rs.360/- is rejected, as it would be subject to the further orders of the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners would not be eligible to claim any additional right or interest, based on equity, in view of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index:Yes/No 30-03-2010
Internet:Yes/No
csh

To

The Additional District Munsif Court,
Alandur.

M.JAICHANDREN J.

csh

C.R.P.(PD) No.3382 of 2009

30-03-2010

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information