3/2551 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 153 (No. 2504) 2008
Mr. Somsagoon Jeerasin vs. Mrs. Benja Jeerasin

Re: Building Lease

The plaintiff filed a motion and revised the motion to force the defendant and parties to remove their property from the disputed building and for the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for damages counting from the date the notification was made until the date the motion was filed, amounting to 2,200 baht, and 550 baht per month from the date the motion was filed until all property has been removed from the disputed building.

The defendant requested the court dismiss the case.

The trial court ordered the defendants and party to remove their property from the disputed building number 354, Panit Road, Chachoengsao Province. The court ordered the defendant to compensate for damages amounting to 2,200 baht to the plaintiff, and 550 baht per month counting from the date subsequent to the filing of the motion concerning the Thailand building lease until all property has been removed, including payment of court fees for the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed. The judge for the trial court affirmed that the defendant was entitled to appeal on the relevant issues of the case.

District 2 Appeals Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the case.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court stated: “What must be determined in this case is if the plaintiff is entitled to file a motion or not. The issue in the plaintiff’s motion was that Mrs. Jitra Jeerasin, the mother of the plaintiff, leased the disputed building from the Office of His Majesty the King’s Assets, and Mrs. Jitra permitted the defendant and parties to reside in the disputed building. Subsequently, Mrs. Jitra transferred the lease rights to the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore was entitled to lease the disputed building from the Office of His Majesty the King’s Assets. The plaintiff did not want the defendant and parties to reside in the disputed building, and requested them to vacate the building, yet they did not concede to the request. Even though the plaintiff was entitled to occupy the building as lessee according to the Lease Agreement, the plaintiff had never previously possessed the disputed building according to the Agreement. The defendant and parties resided in the disputed building by virtue of the lease right of Mrs. Jitra, and not the plaintiff’s right. The fact that the defendant and parties resided in the disputed building without prior approval was a violation against the owner of the building (Office of His Majesty the King’s Assets), and not toward the plaintiff who was a new lessee. The defendant had not contested the plaintiff’s right because the plaintiff and the defendant had no previous juristic relations with each other. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to file a lawsuit to evict the defendant and parties from the disputed building. The judgment of District 2 Appeals Court was proper. Therefore the plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.”