Vs. Thirumangai Naidu & Ors  INSC 496 (5 May 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D. P. WADHWA
Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'able Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa M.N. Padmanabhan, Sr.
Adv., Ms. Puja Anand and Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Advs. with him for the appellant
Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. and A.V. Rangam, Adv. with him for the Respondents.
O R D
E R The following order of the Court was delivered:
granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
on the limited question of compensation to the respondents in respect of the
building in question, was issued on August 6, 1996, on the premise that the appellant
himself was in possession of the building. In the counter- affidavit filed by
the respondents, it is stated that the appellant has let out the building to
one Jasmine Electricals on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- and that they have been
in possession and enjoyment of there premises. In the rejoinder, it is admitted
by the appellant in paragraph 8 which reads as under :
is true that I had let out to one Jasmine Electricals, but that is only from
1993 and not earlier.
totally incorrect to state that I have been realising the rental income from
the property since 1968." The admission thereby that he has let out the
premises gets proved. One Mohd. Rafeeq filed O.S. No. 6/97 in the Court of the
District Munsif of Cuddalore for injunction against the owner. Therein, he
stated that he entered into an agreement of lease on March 11, 1987. Further fresh deed was executed on
April 30, 1990. He claimed injunction on the basis
of the directions issued by this Court. Thus it could be seen that the
appellant has suppressed these material facts before getting the notice issued.
Notice is accordingly withdrawn .
appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs., 5,000/- payable by the
appellant to the Supreme court Legal Services Committee within 30 days from
today. In case he does not pay the costs, the Supreme Court Legal Service
Committee is at liberty to have this order executed as a decree.