Madras High Court
John William vs The Regional Manager on 25 January, 2021
S.A (MD) No.236 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.01.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A (MD) No.236 of 2015
John William .. Appellant / Plaintiff
Vs.
1.The Regional Manager,
I.O.B. Central Office,
Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2.The General Manager,
I.O.B. Regional Office,
Vetturnimadam, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3. The Branch Manager,
I.O.B. Nadaikkavu Branch,
Nadaikkavu, Methukumpal Village,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents / Defendants
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the Judgment
and Decree made in A.S.No.6 of 2013 dated 26.03.2014 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurrai confirming the Judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.81 of 2007, dated 04.10.2012 on the file of the II
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/7
S.A (MD) No.236 of 2015
Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurrai.
For Appellant : Mr.G. Ramanathan
For respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The appellant, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 81 of 2007 has
come up with this Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit for
damages against the Bank and for termination of the lease hold on the
expiry of the lease period.
2. The plaintiff originally filed a suit for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants Bank from effecting the shifting of its office
from the plaintiff's property to any other property and for recovery of
Rs.70,000/- with 12% interest.
3. Pending suit, the Bank vacated the premises and handed
over the possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, both the Courts below
dismissed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that
the relief does not survive. As regards the claim of the plaintiff for
damages, the Courts below found that the plaintiff has not established that
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.236 of 2015
he has suffered damages to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. Reliance was placed
by the Courts below on the report of the Advocate Commissioner which
disclosed that the damages that were pointed out, were all routine in nature
and the repair works that have been done are due to usual wear and tear on
the above findings, the Courts below had dismissed the suit. Hence, the
plaintiff is on appeal.
4. Though the respondents have been served, they have not
appeared either in person or through counsel duly instructed.
5. At the time of admission, the following substantial
questions of law have been framed:
1. Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the
suit relying on particular a clause in the agreement Ex.A1?
2. Whether the Courts below are correct in rejecting the
claim of damages of Rs.70,000/- without any reason?
6. Mr.G.Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would vehemently contend that the Courts below were not right
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.236 of 2015
in dismissing the suit as a whole and it should have seen that repair works
are required to be done to enable the plaintiff to put the building in shape
for use. Therefore, according to him, the Courts below should have atleast
granted the damages as found by the Commissioner. The lease is a matter
of contract. The lease deed Ex. A1 specifically provided that the lessee is
entitled to vacate the premises even during the currency of lease or on the
expiry of the entire lease period. Clause 4(i) of the lease deed also states
that if the Lessees are desirous of vacating the premises before the expiry
of the lease period, they shall be at liberty to do so, on giving three months
notice and they shall not be liable for payment of rent for the unexpired
portion of the lease period.
7. There is nothing in the lease deed which enables the
plaintiff to claim damages that he had incurred. In order to recover the
damages from the tenant, the landlord has to prove that the damages were
caused by extraordinary acts of the tenant. Usual wear and tear will not
give cause of action to the landlord to claim damages against the tenant.
8. The Commissioner's Report on the other hand, discloses
that whatever the damages that have been caused are due to routine user
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.236 of 2015
and not due to any special act done by the defendant Bank. Therefore, I
am of the considered view that the Courts below were right in concluding
that in view of the Clause 4(i) of the lease deed agreement, the plaintiff
cannot seek the relief of injunction or damages.
9. The Courts below have also found that there is no proof for
the quantum of damages claimed by the plaintiff. Hence, the substantial
questions of law are answered against the appellant. The Second Appeal
fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
25.01..2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
trp
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.236 of 2015
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurrai
2. The II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurrai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.236 of 2015
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.,
trp
S.A (MD) No.236 of 2015
25.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
