http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: R. VARADARAJAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THIRUMANGAI NAIDU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D. P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:               Hon’able 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:      Leave granted.   We  have heard learned counsel on both sides.      Notice 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 :      "It is  true that  I had let out to      one Jasmine  Electricals, but  that      is only  from 1993 and not earlier.      It is  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  Notice is accordingly withdrawn .      The appeal  is dismissed  with costs quantified at Rs., 5,000/- payable  by the appellant to the Supreme court Legal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.