HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. BANUMATHI & V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
Hotel Chinnass Represented by its Partner P.M. Balasubramaniam & Others
Versus
Tamilnadu Kalvi Kappu Arakkattalai Registered Trust Represented Chennai & Another
O.S.A. No.77 of 2011
Decided on : 09-08-2011
Ejectment - Lease Agreement - Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act - Regularisation Fee - Future Damages
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Trust, leased a property to the defendants for conducting a lodging business. The lease agreement was extended for three years, but the defendants breached the terms by subletting and not paying rent. The plaintiff issued a notice to quit, but it was found to be invalid. However, the lease period ended by efflux of time during the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the notice to quit invalid but held that the defendants were liable to vacate the premises due to the lease period ending. The court also confirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to regularisation fee and future damages.
Issues: Breach of lease terms, validity of notice to quit, regularisation fee, future damages, and final decision
Ratio Decidendi: The termination of tenancy by efflux of time led to the defendants being deemed trespassers, justifying their ejectment. The plaintiff's claim for regularisation fee and future damages was upheld.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. The defendants were given three months to vacate the premises.
V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge made in C.S.No.341 of 2003 dated 28.09.2010
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff/first respondent are as follows:
The plaintiff is a Trust which was registered in the year 1976. The object of the Trust is to offer relief to the poor by way of education and medical relief and to establish and maintain educational institutions and workshops for imparting general, technical professional, industrial and other means of education and training and to establish hostels, choulteries, rest homes, orphanages, homes for the benefit of poor and destitute and others. The Trust has been exempted from payment of Income Tax under Section 80-G vide letter No.DIT(E)No.212(137)176 dated 28.06.2002. The property bearing Door No.77(New No.32) Bazullah Road, Theagaraya Nagar, Chennai-17 is one of the immovable properties owned by the Plaintiff Trust. So far as the registered office of the Trust is concerned, the same is situate at a portion in No. 77(New No.32) Bazullah Road, Theagaraya Nagar, Chennai-17. The third defendant approached the plaintiff for taking lease of the property situate at No.77(New No.32) Bazullah Road, Theagaraya Nagar, Chennai-17, for the purpose of conducting business of lodging house. The Trust Board authorised the Joint Managing Trustee to enter into a lease deed with the third defendant. The lease deed dated 2.2.1999 was entered into between the plaintiff and the third defendant and it was registered as Document No.180/99 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, T.Nagar, Chennai. The said lease was for a period of three years commencing from 1.9.1998 and the period of renewal for a period of three years was subject to the condition that the tenant pays enhancement of 20% of the rent payable on 30th September, 2001. The third defendant paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards security deposit which is refundable at the time of handing over vacant possession of the suit property. Thereafter, the second defendant was inducted and the first defendant partnership firm was constituted and the same was intimated to the plaintiff vide letter dated 20.12.2000. It was specifically admitted that the lease deed was binding on the first and second defendants also. As per clause 20 of the lease deed, the defendants had agreed the right of the plaintiff to terminate the lease if the lessee, commits default in payment of rent consecutively for a period of two months. As per the lease deed, from 1.10.2001, the rent payable by the defendants 1 to 3 is Rs.1,45,530/- per month but the defendants 1 to 3 have not paid the said quantum of rent and committed breach of terms as stipulated in clause 20 of the lease agreement. By letter dated 18.9.2011, the plaintiff informed the 3rd defendant intimating about the quantum of rent with effect from 10.10.2001 and also payment of electricity deposit. By letter dated 10.11.2001, the defendants 1 to 3 have admitted that the rents for the month of July, August and September 2001 were not paid and only in November 2001, the rent has been paid and they have not paid the rent for the month of October 2001. Thereafter, lesser amount of rent was paid on 13.11.2001 and 16.11.2001 for the month of July, August, September, 2001 and the correct quantum of rent was not paid. The defendants requested not to increase the quantum of rent as they were facing financial constraints. By letter dated 14.6.2002, the defendants sent a sum of Rs.5,39,375/-representing the arrears of rent from January to May, 2002 and the said amount was calculated at the rate of Rs.1,21,275/- which was not the rent agreed by the plaintiff. Further, the defendant has deducted a sum of Rs.67,000/- said to have been paid towards electricity deposit. The defendants 1 to 3 have committed breach of the terms of agreement by belated payment of amount. The defendants 1 to 3 sublet the ground floor portion to the 4th defendant Hot
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.