Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Dr. P. Durai & Others - Plaintiff
Versus
Vincent Asokan & Another - Defendant
CS. Nos. 375 to 378 of 2004
Decided On : 21-11-2017
For the Plaintiff :P.L. Narayanan, Advocate.
For the Defendant :M/s. Rank Associates, Harishankar, Advocates.
The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an oral agreement for lease and therefore, the court dismissed the suit.
Headnote:
No specific statutes were referenced or discussed by the court in this judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a tenant, filed a suit seeking a direction to execute and register a lease deed for 99 years for the shop he occupied. The defendants denied the existence of an oral agreement for lease. The plaintiff relied on receipts and lease documents, but they were found to be insufficient and inadmissible. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an oral agreement and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the receipts and lease documents presented by the plaintiff and found them to be insufficient and inadmissible. The court also considered the arguments of the defendants and concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an oral agreement for lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an oral agreement for lease and dismissed the suit. The court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the court fee paid by the plaintiff was correct.
Result: The court dismissed the suit with costs.
1. CS.No.375 of 2004 has been filed by the tenant in the property at No.56, Kodambakkam High Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17.
2. The 1st Defendant was the erstwhile owner of the said property. The 2nd Defendant is the purchaser of the said property. All the four suits had been filed, seeking a direction against the 1st Defendant to execute and register lease deeds with respect to the shops under occupation by each one of the four Plaintiffs for a period of 99 years commencing from 9.3.2000 and to direct the 1st Defendant to specifically perform the oral agreement for lease dated, 9.3.2000, reduced into writing and filed as document along with the plaints and in default, to direct execution and registration of the said lease deed by a person to be appointed by this court and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or anybody acting under them from interfering with their respective shop portions of each one of the four Plaintiffs and for further direction against the 1st Defendant to pay damages of Rs.48,300/- to each one of the Plaintiffs and continue to pay damages at the rate of Rs.1610/- p.m until the date of payment of Rs.2,25,000/- in respect of each one of the four suits and for costs.
3. Plaint:-
(a) The Plaintiff, Dr.P.Durai, claimed that he is a tenant in a portion of the building at Door No.56, Kodambakkam High Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 and he is having a Clinic under the name and style of SV.Clinic. He commenced it in February 1987. At the time of commencement, he paid Rs.3150/- as deposit amount. The rent had been increased periodically and at the time of institution of the suit, the rent was fixed at Rs.1610/- p.m. the 1st Defendant is Vincent Asokan. At the time of institution of the suit, the property belonged to the family of Asokan. However, the actual owner of the portion, in which the Plaintiff was a tenant, was the elder brother of the 1st Defendant by name, Amalraj Asokan. However, Amalraj Asokan was suffering from mental ill health.
(b) The 1st Defendant was the Manager and Guardian pursuant to the orders of this court. Consequently, he was collecting the rents. It has been stated that the 1st Defendant was finding it difficult to maintain the suit property. He wanted to sell the portion allotted in his favour and also the Northern portion which he was administering for his brother Amalraj. The Plaintiff was interested in purchasing the shop under his occupation. Since Amalraj was a person of unsound mind, it was suggested that a lease deed for 99 years can be entered into. The total consideration was fixed at Rs.2.75 lakhs.
(c) There were several rounds of discussions between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant and his Manager, Gopalakrishnan. Finally, there was a discussion on 9.3.2000 in the residence of the 1st Defendant. It was stated that during the said discussion, it was agreed among the parties that a lease deed for 99 years shall be entered into for a total sum of Rs.2.75 lakhs. An advance of Rs.50,000/- should be paid. The tax arrears must be cleared before registration of the lease deed. A contractual rent of Rs.1610 shall be paid till the payment of entire Rs.2.75 lakhs and thereafter, for 99 years, there will be no payment of rent. There were also other clauses with respect to managing the shop as a owner without affecting other occupants of the building. Stamp duty and registration cost were to be borne by the Plaintiff. There was no time limit fixed for completion and registration of the lease deed.
(d) It has been stated that Gopalakrishnan wanted a sum of Rs.2750/-. The Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2000/-. Subsequently, the Plaintiff issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Habibullah Road Branch, bearing No.351667 in favour of A.Amalraj. Thereafter, the 1st Defendant evaded execution of the lease deed. A draft lease deed was prepared in the middle of 2001 which was the actual terms already agreed upon. Another draft lease deed was sent in February 2002. There were ex
