Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 74
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
A/M. Navaneetheswara Swamy Thirukoil, Rep. by its Executive Officer
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by District Collector & Others
S.A. No. 450 of 2006
Decided on: 13-01-2015
For the Appellant:M/s. Srinath Sridevan & T.K. Baskar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: M. Jayasree, Govt. Pleader (CS).
Headnote:
Transfer of Property Act - Section 108 - Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Leases of immovable properties - Claimed rent for undelivered portion - Possession pointing out that a portion of land - Payment of rent for entire land – Appellant plaintiff temple owns of wet and dry land total extent Seller Village - Entire extent of was taken on lease by Government Agriculture Department for running a seed development farm in - Agreed rent was rate of Quintals of paddy or its market value as per price fixed by Government for wet lands and dry lands - Initial lease period was five years - But Agriculture Department continued its possession till end of - Government proposed to close seed farm and surrender lands to appellant plaintiff by end of - Offer to surrender lands was intimated temple by a notice - Meanwhile several encroachments were found to have been made during lease period - Hence appellant plaintiff temple declined offer and insisted upon re-delivery of entire land in same condition in which it was delivered to Agriculture Department at inception of lease - Same was done by issuing a reply notice - In addition to said insistence appellant plaintiff temple also made a demand in said reply notice for payment of rent for entire land – Held, Though courts below have rightly rejected said contention which was developed during course of trial they committed an error in holding that appellant plaintiff temple was to be blamed for not accepting surrender of a major portion of leasehold land and seeking proportionate rent for minor portion over which there were encroachers very approach made by courts below is improper and same show prejudice with which problem was approached by courts below - Since it has been clearly established through evidence adduced on side of appellant plaintiff and also by admission made by respondents defendants that there were encroachers over which came to be made after Agriculture Department took land for lease and that they had initiated proceedings for removal of encroachments respondents representing Agriculture Department were liable to pay rent for leasehold land until same was surrendered in very same condition in which it was leased out to Agriculture Department free from encumbrances after removal of encroachments - Hence respondents defendants are very much liable to pay rent for fails before end of which property was not surrendered validly - Third substantial question of law is answered accordingly in favor of appellant and against respondents defendants - Necessary consequence shall be that finding of courts below to effect that respondents were not liable to pay rent for the fails appellant plaintiff was not entitled to recover rent for said fails is perverse and same is liable to be interfered with and reversed - Resultant position shall be that appellant plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for recovery of rent - So far as quantum of rent is concerned there is no dispute - Hence decree of trial court which was confirmed by lower appellate court is bound to be modified by directing respondents defendants to pay a sum being rent for falsies together with a subsequent interest on said amount from date of plaint till realization at rate of facts and circumstances of this case this court deems it appropriate to hold that appellant plaintiff shall be entitled to cost throughout - Appeal is allowed
1. The plaintiff in the original suit O.S.No.61 of 2003 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam is the appellant in the second appeal. The defendants in the suit are the respondents in the second appeal. The appellant/plaintiff temple comes under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and it is represented by its Executive Officer.
2. The appellant/plaintiff temple owns 268.10 Acres of wet land and 23.48 Acres of dry land (total extent 291.58 Acres) in Sellur Village, Nagapattinam Taluk. The entire extent of 291.58 Acres was taken on lease by the Government (Agriculture Department) for running a seed development farm in the year 1982. The agreed rent was Rs.33,512/- (at the rate of Rs.125/- per acre) + 305.635 Quintals of paddy or its market value, as per the price fixed by the Government for the wet lands and Rs.2,000/- for the dry lands. The initial lease period was five years. But the Agriculture Department continued its possession till the end of March 2001. On 01.11.2000, the Government proposed to close the seed farm and surrender the lands to the appellant/plaintiff by the end of March 2001. The offer to surrender the lands was intimated to the temple by a notice dated 01.11.2000. Meanwhile several encroachments were found to have been made during the lease period. Hence the appellant/plaintiff temple declined the offer and insisted upon re-delivery of the entire land in the same condition in which it was delivered to the Agriculture Department at the inception of the lease. The same was done by issuing a reply notice dated 25.01.2001. In addition to the said insistence, the appellant/plaintiff temple also made a demand, in the said reply notice, for payment of rent for the entire land for the faslis 1409 and 1410. The Agriculture Department, which is represented by the respondents herein, initially denied their liability to pay rent for the entire extent for the above said faslis on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff temple could have accepted the surrender of major portion of the land leased out to the Agriculture Department, barring comparatively a smaller extent in the occupation of the encroachers and demanded payment of rent/damages in respect of the encroached portions alone. However, subsequently the Agriculture Department paid the rent for the entire fasli except for the fasli 1409. Since the land was not surrendered to the temple in the same condition in which it was leased out to the Agriculture Department, the appellant/plaintiff temple was constrained to file the suit O.S.No.61/2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Nagapattinam praying for a decree against the respondents herein/defendants directing payment of a sum of Rs.4,13,332.50P towards the rent for the faslis 1410 and 1411 with subsequent interest and cost.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondents herein/defendants contending that the seed farm was closed with effect from 31.03.2001 and the Agriculture Department came forward to surrender the land, but the appellant/plaintiff temple refused to take possession pointing out that a portion of the land had been encroached upon by third parties and demanding that the land should be restored to its original condition in which the land was handed over to the Agriculture Department at the inception of the lease by removing the encroachments made by the third parties, so as to enable the appellant/plaintiff temple to accept delivery of possession; that out of 291.58 Acres, only an extent of 12.22 Acres was under the encroachment and the rest of the extent was ready for delivery to the appellant/plaintiff temple; that the appellant/plaintiff temple was unsuccessfully persuaded by the respondents to get possession of 279.36 Acres with the promise that in respect of the balance extent (12.22 Acres) the encroachments would be evicted and then handed over to the temple; that the temple could have accepted the same and claimed rent for the undelivered port
