IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.08.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL O.S.A.NOS.95 TO 106 OF 2007 V.Eshwariammal .. Appellant in all the appeals (Respondent/Defendant) Vs. Usharani Chandramohan, Proprietrix, M/s.Ganesh Aluminium Industries, No.52,Poonammallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107 .. Respondent in OSA Nos.95 & 96/2007 (Applicant/Plaintiff) M.Sadasivam, Proprietor, M/s.Arun Tiles, No.52,Poonammallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107 .. Respondent in OSA Nos.97 & 98/2007 (Applicant/Plaintiff) D.Gopalan, Proprietor, M/s.Plastics and Fibres Inc., No.52,Poonammallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107. .. Respondent in OSA Nos.99 & 100/2007 (Applicant/Plaintiff) M/s.Hila Industries, A regd. Partnership Firm, rep. by one of its Partner, A.Thameezuddeen, No.52, Poonammallee High Road, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107. .. Respondent in OSA Nos.101 & 102/2007 M.Ravindran, Proprietor, City Snacks, No.52,Poonammallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107. .. Respondent in OSA Nos.103 & 104/2007 (Applicant/Plaintiff) Fahd Ahmed, Proprietor, M/s.Alfa Sea Foods, No.52,Poonammallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107 .. Respondent in OSA Nos.105 & 106/2007 (Respondent/Plaintiff) These OSAs haves been preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order made in O.A.Nos.243, 244, 246, 245, 247, 248, 250, 249, 251, 252, 277 and 276 of 2007 in C.S.Nos.186, 187, 188, 189, 190 and 207 of 2007, dated 09.04.2007. For Appellant : Mr.V.Sundara Kumar For Respondents: Mr.S.Subbiah - - - - COMMON JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) All these appeals concentrate on challenging a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in O.A. Nos.243, 244, 246, 245, 247, 248, 250, 249, 251, 252, 277 and 276 of 2007. All those applications came to be filed by the plaintiffs in 6 suits in C.S.Nos.186, 187, 188, 189, 190 and 207 of 2007. 2.From the plaints in those suits, it could be seen that the plaintiffs sought the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' carrying on remedial works for the restoration of schedule 'B' property forming part of schedule 'A', being a portion of land and building thereon and also for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the plaint schedule property morefully described in the schedules A and B annexed to the plaint together with all the amenities including supply of water except otherwise than in accordance with law. 3.At the time of filing of those suits, each plaintiff filed two applications in their respective suit, seeking interim relief in the line of the main relief. In all those applications, the respondent made appearance and filed counter affidavits. All those applications were taken up for enquiry and the learned Single Judge has made the following order: "5.Accordingly, all the applications are ordered permitting the applicants/plaintiffs to demolish the portion of the wall and building earmarked by the National Highways Authority within two days, viz., on or before 11.04.2007, failing which the Highways Authority will be free to carry out demolition. While carrying out demolition, it is open to the applicants/plaintiffs to put up a new wall within the area retained by the respondent/defendant after the acquisition proceedings, in such a manner so as not to encroach upon either the area retained by the respondent/defendant or the area acquired by the National Highways Authority. The parties can work out their remedies in the main suit." Aggrieved over the said order, the plaintiff in each suit has brought forth all these appeals. 4.The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the counsel for the respondents. Concededly, all the respondents herein are tenants under the appellant/landlady in respect of the shops situated in the building. It is also not in controversy that a part of the building was proposed to be taken by the Highways Department for the purpose of widening the road. After coming to know about the same, the respondents/tenants made a request to the landlady to demolish a particular portion, which was likely to be acquired by the National Highways Authority and also to make an alternate arrangements. According to them, they also sought her permission to remove that part of the building, which was likely to be taken by the National Highways Authority, to which course the landlady was not amenable. Under such circumstances, all the tenants have brought forth their respective suits for the aforesaid relief. 5.It is not in controversy that there was proposal by the Highways to demolish a part of the building in question, but on the day when the suits were filed, actually there was neither demolition nor proposal was proceeded with by the Highways Authority. The Highways Authorities were also not added as party to the suits. But, from the order under challenge, it could be seen that Mr.P.Wilson, the then Assistant Solicitor General has stated, on instructions, that a portion of the constructed area had already been earmarked and the Officers of the National Highways Authority had already gone to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the spot that day for earmarking and carrying out demolition. It is not in controversy that no part of the building was either demolished or removed by the Highways Department. The learned Single Judge, on the reasons adduced by him in the order, has permitted the tenants to remove that portion of the building alleged to have been earmarked by the Highways Authorities within two days and if not, the Highways Authorities were free to demolish that part. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that accordingly pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, a part of the building was demolished and removed by the tenants. Under these circumstances, these appeals have arisen before this court. 6.After filing all these appeals, an Advocate Commissioner of this Court was appointed, who made an inspection of the property and also filed a report along with the sketch. There were 14 tenants, out of whom 8 have vacated and 6 have brought forth these appeals. As could be seen from the submissions made and also the Commissioner's report, after demolition was made, the tenants have raised construction in the area. 7.In appraisement of the circumstances then existing, this Bench has ordered both the parties to maintain status quo. Insofar as the order of the learned Single Judge, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where it could be sustained. This Court is in thorough disagreement with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, pursuant to the order of the court, the building has been demolished, removed and subsequently, constructions have been raised by the tenants and as on today, they are occupying and carrying on their business in their respective places. 8.On the last occasion, when these appeals were taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/landlady has proposed to construct a storied building in the 3 grounds available as on today, for which purpose the existing building now raised by the tenants have got to be demolished and removed and that plan has got to be approved. The landlady has no objection to give them each one shop, abutting the road and rentals have got to be fixed as agreed upon by the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that to such a course, the tenants have no objection. Hence in respect of the proposed construction by the landlady and for which, the existing constructions have got to be demolished and apart from that, for fixing the areas of shops and also the rentals and the period that has got to be given to the landlady for the proposed construction, a consensus has got to be arrived at. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the matters could be sent before the learned Single Judge of original side for compromise. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9.Under these circumstances, though the court has already recorded its disagreement with the order made by the learned Single Judge, it would be fit and proper in appraisement of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances existing, that the status quo as found in the report of the Commissioner appointed by this court should prevail. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo and any disobedience thereon has got to be viewed seriously. Both the parties are at liberty to put forth their compromise before the learned Single Judge in respect of the above factors and in pursuance of which, the learned Single Judge would pass necessary orders. For any reasons, if compromise could not be fructified between the parties, the learned Single Judge is required to dispose of the cases at the earliest on merits. With the above observations, all these appeals are disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. Vvk To The Sub.Asst.Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras. + 1 CC To Mr.S.Subbiah, Advocate SR NO.46088 + 1 CC To Mr.Sanjay Ramaswami, Advocate SR NO.45912 O.S.A.NOS.95 TO 106/2007 BV {CO} TP/13.10.08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/