Lease Agreement Controls Eviction Proceedings Regarding Property Ownership
The Royal Thai Shipping Company sued for eviction of Mr. Sirit, who stipulated in court that the Royal Thai Shipping Company would allow Mr. Sirit to remain, except when necessary for the benefit of the Royal Thai Shipping Company, in which case Mr. Sirit would be permitted to leave the disputed premises. Subsequently, Mr. Ngern filed a lawsuit against Mr. Sirit regarding plot number 18, and Mr. Sirit testified in this case that the disputed land belonged to Mr. Ngern. As to whether the Royal Thai Shipping Company admitted Mr. Sirit’s testimony that the disputed land belonged to Mr. Ngern, the court considered: the Royal Thai Shipping Company brought Mr. Sirit’s testimony regarding the disputed land belonging to Mr. Ngern as evidence in the case where Mr. Ngern’s son, Mr. Sirit, sued Mr. Sirit, in which the Royal Thai Shipping Company was the defendant, and the disputed land belonged to Mr. Ngern; this was irrelevant to the condition regarding the lease stipulated in the agreement of conciliation and compromise between Mr. Sirit and the Royal Thai Shipping Company; the Royal Thai Shipping Company would raise other reasons to evict Mr. Sirit, but the eviction was not permitted because the Royal Thai Shipping Company was bound by the agreement of conciliation and compromise (Judgment of the Supreme Court, Case No. 784/2511).
Mr. Piak leased the entire plot of land from Mr. Cha; some of the land in the plot