In a second appeal regarding eviction, the single-judge bench dismissed the appeal. The court noted the plaintiff intended to demolish and reconstruct the property and found no justification for the tenant to resist eviction after prolonged litigation, finding no substantial question of law.
Second Appeal dismissed; consequential miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.10.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Second Appeal No.849 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.16617 of 2016
Wilson @ Pitchai ... Appellant/Defendant
vs. C.Justin ... Respondent/Plaintiff
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2016 in A.S.No.8 of 2015 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 made in O.S.No.194 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif at Chengalpattu.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Jayaraman For Respondent: No Appearance
J U D G M E N T
The appellant is the defendant in a suit for ejectment. The respondent as the plaintiff sought eviction of the appellant from the suit property admittedly owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff as the owner of the property sought recovery of possession by contending that he wants to demolish the existing premises and put up a new construction. The plaintiff issued legal notice and even thereafter, the defendant did not vacate the premises. On the other hand, it appears that an earlier suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.137 of 2010 seeking for the relief of injunction restraining the plaintiff in the present suit namely, the owner of the property from evicting the tenant except by due process of law, came to be dismissed and confirmed in Appeal. Thereafter, the present suit for ejectment came to be filed by the landlord. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence let in by the parties, accepted the claim of the plaintiff and decreed the suit by ordering eviction of the appellant herein.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1. The Additional Subordinate, Chengalpattu.
2. The District Munsif at Chengalpattu.
+1cc to Mr.K. Jayaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.60084
+1cc to Mr.Ravidevan , Advocate, S.R.No.59968
KJI(CO)
EU(21/11/2016)
Second Appeal No.849 of 2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises regarding eviction of the appellant from the suit property owned by the respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Wilson @ Pitchai
C. Justin
K. Ravichandrababu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
