HC suggests review of laws periodically

The Madras High Court today suggested review of laws periodically to disapprove of people using courts to harass others after it found that a tenant had dragged an eviction case for nearly 40 years without vacating the premises even after a lower court order.
The court slapped a "punitive compensatory cost" of Rs 50,000 on the tenant V Govindasamy Naidu, who dragged the eviction proceedings and directed him to hand over the land within 15 days.
Justice S Vimala declined to grant any relief to Naidu, against whom an eviction order was passed in 1978 by a lower court. He continued the litigation despite the eviction order.

"This is a case where the tenant has raised very curious contentions and offered strange suggestion to the landlord and subsequent purchaser with a view to reap the benefit of procrastination of proceedings," the judge said.
"Can he be allowed to prolong the case without vacating the premises till 2016, i.E. Nearly for 40 years? Is it not the right time to revamp the judicial system, to reform the procedure and redraft the related laws," the judge asked.
The property's original owner was C S Masilamani and he filed the suit in 1975 seeking eviction of Naidu. Though eviction was ordered by a lower court in 1978, he could not enforce the order and it remained in papers.

In 1986, he sold the property to Pahlajraj Gangaram alias Pahlaj Rai.

When Gangaram filed another eviction notice, Naidu opposed it saying it was not maintainable as Masilamani himself had exhausted the eviction petition option. The only remedy open to the new purchaser is to file a fresh suit for possession, he contented.
Dismissing the objections, justice Vimala said "judicial system should eradicate the ability of one party to cause harassment to the other party by using the procedure as a tool. The judicial system cannot be permitted to be used as a feeding ground to get profit out of the litigation, by adopting delaying tactics".

"If greater public trust and confidence is to be built, compensation to the party, who suffered, is essential."
The judge further said that the new purchaser is entitled to pursue the eviction case which had been forced on him due to the "recurring infringement" of the court order by the tenant.