M.A. No. 42 of 2007. Case: Manoj Prakashan Vs Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd..
| Case Number | M.A. No. 42 of 2007 |
| Judges | K. Gnanaprakasam, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101, 102, 103, 114; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(13), 13(4), 17, 17(4), 35 |
| Judgement Date | April 30, 2007 |
Judgment:
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. (Chairperson)
-
This is an appeal by tenant, who is 3rd party to the Original Application. The case of the appellants is that, it is a partnership firm, and one Manoj Sharma, is a partner of the firm. The appellant had taken on lease of the subject property with ground and first floor at old No. 84 new No. 127, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14, from its owner, C. Somasundari. The appellants are running their publication office as lessee for more than 5 years. The appellants have also entered into lease agreements with its owners, which was lastly renewed on 15th April, 2004. The appellants have been paying Rs. 9,000/- towards monthly rent and Rs. 7000/- towards amenities charges. The appellants have also paid a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards rental advance. Appellants have spent about Rs. 3 lacs towards renovation of the building, and interior decoration. Appellants have been paying the rent through cheques, and hence, contend that they are statutory tenants in the subject property. The appellants also state that they are having telephone connections, and that apart they have been paying sales tax and professional tax. The appellants claim they are statutory tenants and, therefore, they cannot be evicted except by due process of law. It is further stated that the appellants have found order dated 10th March, 2005, issued by the Recovery officer, D.R.T.-II, Chennai, as the same was pasted on the premises. The appellants immediately issued a reply dated 25th March, 2005 to the respondent No. 1 explaining the facts in detail of their tenancy in the subject property, and also requested them to instruct about payment of monthly rent in future. The appellants have not received any reply. But, all of a sudden, on 29th June, 2005, at about 12.30 p.m., men, who are about 30 in number entered into the premises, removed all the valuables, such as computers, furniture, fittings worth more than 20 lacs, without even informing the appellants, and hence, they were put to shock and surprise. On enquiry, they came to know, that they were taking possession, in pursuance of the order of the D.R.T. The appellants state that they were made to suffer, and also incurred loss, of reputation and goodwill, in their business. The 1st respondent had done so, without following any of the Rules and Regulations, and, therefore, the possession taken by the respondent, is illegal and liable to set aside. The appellants prayed for restitution of the subject property, which came to be dismissed by the D.R.T., by its order dated 5th June, 2006. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent.
-
The learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the owners of the property viz., C. Ramalingam and others, have given power of attorney in favour of C. Somasundari on 14th May, 2001, which power of attorney, empowers the principal to let out the property, and enter into rental agreement and lease Based upon the power of attorney, C. Somasundari entered into a lease agreement with the appellants on 15th May, 2001 and executed a lease agreement for a period of 11 months, commencing from 15th May, 2001. There is a separate amenity agreement of even date. The landlord also passed a receipt dated 28th May, 2001 for a sum of Rs. 90,000/as security deposit for the rent, Rs. 70,000/- under the receipt dated 28th May, 2001, as security deposit for the amenities. These five documents are available from page 1 to page 11 of the type set of the papers. The appellants have also intimated their change of address, to the Commercial Tax officer, by letter dated 15th June, 2001 (page 12). The Telephone department (B.S.N.L.), by their two letters of even number dated 9th July, 2001 under D-note Nos. 71416 and 71417 demanded payment towards registration fee for new telephone connections to the address new No. 127, old No. 84, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14. The appellants have once again written to the Commercial Tax officer (C.T.O.), on 12th April, 2002, requesting for transfer of file from Egmore office to the concerned C.T.O., Royapettah, and the same was acknowledged by C.T.O., Chennai-8, on 15th April, 2002.
-
The appellants have also filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial