Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1689
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
Laskhmi Rauschenbach Rep by Her Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan
Versus
Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep by its Director Christian Lippens & Another
O.P. No. 11 of 2010
Decided on: 19-04-2013
For the Petitioner:M.K. Kabir, S.C for A. Dhiravia Nathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Raj Kishore, Advocate, R2, (Arbitrator) No Representation.
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the agreement and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 108(m).
Headnote:
lease - property dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 108(m) - The court discussed the validity of lease termination, vacant possession, and damages to the property. The court interpreted the terms of the agreement and held that the petitioner was not entitled to deduct rent for the period after the lease ended. The court also found that the tenant was not liable for rent after the lease period and that the landlady was to blame for not following the rental agreement. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the agreement and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 108(m).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an award related to a lease agreement for a property. The petitioner claimed damages and rent deduction from the respondent for overstay and remaining rectification work. The respondent filed for appointment of an Arbitrator, who directed the petitioner to refund a portion of the deducted amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to deduct rent for the period after the lease ended and that the respondent was not liable for rent after the lease period. The court also held that the landlady was to blame for not following the rental agreement.
Issues: Validity of lease termination, vacant possession, damages to the property, and rent deduction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the agreement and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 108(m).
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the award.
1. The petitioner has challenged the Award dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.Kanakaraj, Judge (Retd.), Sole Arbitrator.
2. The petitioner entered into agreement for lease with respect to the property bearing Door No.1, Swathi Ceebros Residential Complex, Raja Rangasamy Avenue, Yekediar Enclave, Valmiki Nagar, Chennai.
3. The petitioner is the owner of the residential house having a built up area of 2665 sq.ft. together with fixtures and fittings as shown in the annexure to the agreement. The lease was for the period of 11 months with option to renew it for a like period. The rent was fixed at Rs.52,500/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) per month and the respondent no.1 also deposited a security deposit of Rs.5,25,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) as interest free deposit.
4. It is submitted, that it was the responsibility of respondent no.1 to maintain the fixtures and fittings and the amenities provided in the rent premises in good condition. As per the terms of agreement, the respondent no.1 had agreed to deliver the vacant possession with fittings and fixtures in a good and sound repair. The 1st respondent was also made responsible for damages and breakages etc. Under Clause 5, the petitioner was to deduct such amount towards damages. The tenant was supposed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in a good and tenable condition.
5. On 11.08.2005, the 1st respondent issued a letter stating that it will be vacating the premises on 31.08.2005, by handing over the vacant possession. On 01.09.2005, the Power Agent of the petitioner went to take possession, but it was noticed, that there was some damages to the property as also buildings, fixtures and fittings. The respondent no.1 was therefore asked to rectify the damages and hand over the vacant possession after carrying out the rectification work.
6. It is submitted, that the rectification was completed only in the month of January, 2006. The petitioner also complained about the damages caused to the building. The case of petitioner therefore was that respondent no.1 had undertaken to deliver vacant possession of the premises with fittings and fixtures in a good condition.
7. It is submitted, that the rectification was carried out till January, 2006, and the possession of premises was handed over on 27.01.2006, that too with incomplete rectification, therefore, the petitioner deducted a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) for overstay calculated at the contractual rent of Rs.52,500/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) per month, and sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for remaining rectification work, and returned the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) to the respondent no.1.
8. On account of deduction by petitioner, the respondent no.1 filed O.P.No.120 of 2008 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The 2nd respondent was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator, who vide Award dated 28.08.2009 directed the petitioner to refund Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) to the 1st respondent while upholding retention of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).
9. The award is challenged, on the grounds;
“i) That it is contrary to the evidence led before the Hon'ble Arbitrator and is opposed to the Substantive Law, therefore is against public policy;
ii) That it was not open to the Hon'ble Arbitrator to traverse beyond the conditions stipulated in the agreement and hold from 01.09.2005, the claimant was neither a tenant, nor a trespasser, therefore was under permissive occupation for doing repairs and this presupposes a concept of symbolic delivery of possession where under Clauses 12 and 5 of the Agreement, handed over vacant possession means the actual possession with all fittings and fixtures in good conditions, therefore, the Award is contrary to the contractual agreement between the parties, thus not
