Application No. 2639 of 2013 and Original Application Nos. 424 and 425 of 2013 and Application No. 2464 of 2013 and Application No. 2558 and 2559 of 2013 and Application Nos. 2590 of 2013 in C.S. No. 382 of 2013. Case: Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao Vs Mr. S. Narayanan and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberApplication No. 2639 of 2013 and Original Application Nos. 424 and 425 of 2013 and Application No. 2464 of 2013 and Application No. 2558 and 2559 of 2013 and Application Nos. 2590 of 2013 in C.S. No. 382 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. G.P. Puzhah Gandhi for Proposed Parties and Mr. Sriram Panchu, Senior Counsel for Arun Anbumani.
JudgesR. Subbiah, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order I Rules 8, 9; Order II Rule 3; Order VI Rule 16(c); Order VII Rule 11(a); Order XXXIX Rule 2A; Section 9; Specific Relief Act 1963 - Sections 34, 38, 41, 41(j); Tamil Nadu Town And Country Planning Act 1971 - Sections 101, 56, 57
Citation2014 (2) LW 92
Judgement DateDecember 20, 2013
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Order:

R. Subbiah, J.

  1. Application No. 2639 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/defendant seeking to reject the plaint under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order VI Rule 16(c) of Civil Procedure Court r/w Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of Civil Procedure Court, 1908. Original Application No. 424 of 2013 has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs praying for grant of Interim Injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his men, agents, representatives, assigns, tenants, lessees, persons and/or any one acting or claiming under or through him, from in any manner interfering with the applicants'/plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the common areas of the building including the land on all the four sides of the building viz., Vijay Apartments, Old No. 5, New No. 9, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

  2. Original Application No. 425 of 2013 has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs praying for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his men, agents, representatives, assigns, tenants, lessees, persons and/or any one acting or claiming under or through him from running a restaurant in the defendant's dwelling unit, viz., Flat No. G-1, Ground Floor, Vijay Apartments, Old No. 5, New No. 9, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

  3. Since interim injunctions have been granted by this Court as prayed for in O.A. Nos. 424 & 425 of 2013 by order dated 14.06.2013, the defendant has filed Application No. 2464 of 2013 praying to vacate the said interim injunctions.

  4. Application Nos. 2558 & 2559 of 2013 have been filed by the applicant/plaintiffs seeking to punish the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of interim injunction dated 14.06.2013 passed by this Court in O.A. Nos. 424 & 425 of 2013 respectively in C.S. No. 382 of 2013.

  5. Application No. 2590 of 2013 has been filed by the plaintiff to implead the proposed parties as Defendants 2 & 3 in the suit in Civil Suit. No. 382 of 2013.

  6. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking in the suit.

  7. Before dealing with all the applications referred above, it would be appropriate to extract the averments made in the plaint.

  8. The averments in the plaint are as follows:-

    9(a)The plaintiffs are eight in number. They are the owners of their respective Flats in the building known as Vijay Apartments situated at Old No. 5, New No. 9, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Most of the Plaintiffs are second and third purchasers of their respective Flats and most of them are senior citizens. There are 12 dwelling units in the said building known as Vijay Apartments, which is a stilt + 4 Floor construction. There are 3 dwelling units each in the First, Second and Third Floors and 2 dwelling units in the Fourth Floor. There is one dwelling unit in the Stilt Floor (i.e., Ground Floor) and covered car parks are provided to some of the Flat Owners in the remaining Stilt Floor area. Those residents, who do not have a covered car parking area, utilize the open space around the building to park their vehicles. There is also a small room in the Stilt Floor (i.e., Ground Floor), owned by one of the plaintiffs.

    9(b) The residential apartment building viz., Vijay Apartments was constructed by Mrs. M.R.C. Appa Rao, who owned the land measuring an extent of about 8,412 sq.ft. (about 3 1/2 grounds) on which the building stands. The then Corporation of Madras sanctioned the building plan for residential purpose only in the year 1981. The building is surrounded by common areas and pathways. The entire land, where the building is constructed, is enclosed by a compound wall. The access to the property is from Burkit Road, which is on the Northern side of the property. The defendant is the owner of the Flat No. G-1 on the Stilt Floor (i.e., Ground Floor vis-a-vis the building premises), a garage on the South East corner of the land along with the proportionate undivided share in the land, having purchased the same in the year 2003. From the time of purchase, the defendant has not been co-operating with the other residents of the building and he has been causing disturbance to the other residents. The defendant further used to dump junk and garbage on the southern and western sides of the building, thereby congesting the common areas. The plaintiffs had to repeatedly request the defendant to clear the same and not to indulge in such activities as the same was causing hindrance to the other residents of the building and blocking the common areas.

    9(c) The other residents of the building, being mostly senior citizens, have tried their best to avoid any kind of confrontation with the defendant. While so, the defendant caused an advertisement in Page 4 of T. Nagar Talk from 30.09.2012 to 06.10.2012, which reads as under:

    T. NAGAR, Burkit Road, HALL TYPE, 2500 Sq.ft. for COMMERCIAL SPACE With 3000 sq.ft. Parking. 9884047921

    Several persons started visiting the building and enquired about the property. Only then the plaintiffs learnt about the advertisement given by the defendant in the newspapers. The defendant claimed as though he was the exclusive owner of 3000 sq.ft. of parking area in the building. When the plaintiffs sought for an explanation from the defendant regarding such false claims, the defendant simply stated that he wanted to sell/let out his Flat to meet out his monetary needs and hence, such an advertisement was made by him. After the above advertisement, the main gate on the Eastern side entrance of the building was locked by the defendant on some days, thereby causing much annoyance and disturbance to some of the plaintiffs. By locking the main gates on some days, the defendant prevented some of the plaintiffs from parking their vehicles in the open space. The defendant also installed a grille gate on the rear (Southern) side of the building and locked the same, thereby preventing access through the common area on the Southern side. The area around the building are common areas and are used as a passage to walk around the building. The security guard of the building walks through these common areas around the building so as to secure the same. By indulging in such activities, the defendant was causing unnecessary problems. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 22.02.2013 to the defendant, but the said legal notice was not received by the defendant and the same was returned as unclaimed.

    9(d) The defendant attempted to lease out his dwelling unit for non-residential purpose, viz., for running a non-vegetarian restaurant. As the activities of the defendant were illegal and in utter violation of terms and conditions of the planning permission, the Bye-Laws and Rules of the Association of the said Flat Owners, the plaintiffs issued another legal notice dated 20.05.2013 calling upon the defendant to desist from such illegal attempts. A copy of the legal notice dated 22.02.2013 was also enclosed with the legal notice dated 20.05.2013 and sent to the defendant.

    9(e) On receipt of the legal notice, the defendant came to the building and handed over two keys of the grille gate installed by him on the Western side of the building to the security guard as well as to the Secretary of the Association, who is the 7th plaintiff herein and also cleared the arrears of monthly maintenance charges payable for over a year to the Association. The defendant also removed the Southern side grille gate lock and the lock put up by him on the main entrance gate. However, the defendant did not remove the two grille gates installed by him and further, his men were seen remodelling his dwelling unit, viz., Flat No. G-1.

    9(f) The plaintiffs learnt from the workers that the defendant has, in fact, permitted the setting up of a non-vegetarian restaurant and the Flat was being remodeled for the same. The plaintiffs immediately contacted the defendant and asked him to desist from such illegal activities, as called for in the earlier legal notices. The plaintiffs also specifically brought to the notice of the defendant that in the building of residential Flats, setting up a restaurant is not permitted and that the same would cause unimaginable hardship to the other residents and that the pressures on logistics like water supply, waster disposal, parking, security etc. would be tremendous. The defendant was further informed that his proposal would be in breach of the original building plan and permission, which meant for residential purposes only. However, the defendant was defiant and was not willing to heed to the genuine and reasonable requests of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated 25.05.2013 to the Commissioner as well as to the Deputy Commissioner (Health) of the Corporation of Chennai and requested them not to issue any permission/licence to any person for using Flat No. G-1, Vijay Apartments, Old No. 5, New No. 9, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Chennai, for commercial/non-residential purposes.

    9(g) The plaintiffs reliably learnt that till date, no permission or licence has been granted to the defendant or his purported lessees for running a restaurant in the building premises, which is purely for residential purpose and without the consent and no-objection from the other co-owners. While so, on 04.06.2013, the defendant sent a letter to the 7th plaintiff, who is the Secretary of the Association, furnishing the name of the person, who will be running the restaurant and the procedures that will be followed by them. The 7th plaintiff suitably replied to the defendant vide letter dated 07.06.2013 rejecting the defendant's proposal to let out the premises for a restaurant and also reiterated the various issues raised in their legal notices and called upon the defendant to rectify the same. The defendant had also sent a person by name Mrs. B.K. Sathya to meet and convince the plaintiffs to permit them to run a restaurant in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT