Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
The National Council of Women in India, Tamil Nadu Branch, Represented by its President, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Koil, Represented by its Joint Commissioner, Executive Officer, Chennai - Respondent
S.A. No. 310 of 2008 & M.P. No. 1 of 2008
Decided On : 04-03-2020
For the Appellant:T.S. Baskaran, Advocate. For the Respondent:Usha Tholgappian, Advocate.
The landlord's refusal to renew a lease based on the tenant's breach of lease terms is justified.
Headnote:
Lease - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - O.S.No.2630 of 1999 - A.S.No.587 of 2005 - 27.06.1973 - 01.07.1972 to 30.06.1996 - Rs.40/- - HR & CE - 14.04.1995 - 26.05.1995 - 08.12.1995 - 26.07.1996 - 30.08.1996 - 16.10.1996 - 106 notice - Transfer of Property - Ex.A.4 - 30.06.1996 - 29 Grounds - Greenways Road, Adyar, Chennai - Social Service organisation - District Revenue Officer - Prime Locality - Substantial Question of law
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages in respect of a property leased to the defendant. The defendant failed to surrender possession after the lease expired and was found to have sublet the property for monetary gain.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant violated the terms of the lease by subletting the property and collecting rents. The plaintiff was within their rights to terminate the lease and refuse renewal. The defendant's conduct was not in keeping with the terms of the lease, and the courts below rightly dismissed the claim of the defendant.
Issues: Extension of lease, recovery of possession, past and future mesne profits
Ratio Decidendi: The defendant's breach of the lease terms, including subletting the property and collecting rents, justified the plaintiff's refusal to renew the lease. The courts below correctly dismissed the defendant's claim.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.2630 of 1999 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and as confirmed by a Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2006 passed in A.S.No.587 of 2005 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)
1. The defendant is the appellant before this Court seeking to question the concurrent Judgment and Decree of both the Courts below. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages in respect of a property measuring 29 Grounds, situate in a prime locality, namely, a Greenways Road, Adyar, Chennai. The brief facts which has to be alluded to in order to more fully appreciate the Judgment and Decree under challenge is as follows. The parties are referred to in the same array as in the suit.
2. The plaintiff is the owner of over 97 Grounds and 1419 Sq. ft at Greenways Road, Adyar, Chennai. On 27.06.1973 this property was leased out to the defendant under a lease agreement. The lease was for a period of 25 years commencing from 01.07.1972 to 30.06.1996. The rent per month was fixed at a sum of Rs.40/-. The defendant was permitted to put up construction to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and at the end of the lease, unless the lease is renewed, the defendant was liable to surrender possession of the land and the buildings. The compensation that is payable to the defendant with reference to the superstructure put up by them was to be decided by the Commissioner, HR & CE.
3. The plaintiff would submit that if there is a default for three months then the lease was liable to be terminated. It is their case that on 14.04.1995, the defendant had requested for renewal of the lease to the Commissioner, HR & CE. On 26.05.1995 the Board of Trustees of the plaintiff temple had decided to reject the request. On 08.12.1995, the decision of the HR & CE department and the Board of Trustees of the plaintiff temple was communicated to the defendant and they were called upon to handover vacant possession of the property.
4. The defendant did not come forward to surrender possession. Thereafter, they had got in touch with the HR & CE department with a request that the lease be extended. On 26.07.1996, pursuant to the request for renewal the District Revenue Officer inspected the premises and found that there is no old age home functioning in the suit premises, but, on the contrary the same has been sublet to various persons and the defendant was collecting rents to the tune of over Rs.73,200/- per year. The lease had also expired on 30.06.1996.
5. Thereafter, the Commissioner, HR & CE department by order dated 30.08.1996, turned down the request of the defendant. On 16.10.1996, since the defendant had not vacated the premises, the plaintiff had issued a notice calling upon them to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the property.
6. The defendant had filed a written statement inter alia contending that they were Social Service organisation with a national base. The Tamil Nadu Branch was engaged in rendering service to aged people over and above the age of 65. They had also accepted the fact that property was taken on lease for 25 years at a rate of Rs.40/- per month. The defendant would come forward with a contention that the organisation is run on the donations collected from the public. The defendant would further submit that they had spent considerable amount of money for developing their lands, fortifying it and put up construction.
7. The grievance of the defendant was that despite their request to extend the lease, the plaintiff had without application of the mind rejected their request and this contention is highly arbitrary and capricious. They had also taken out a defense that though the lease had come to an end the defendant was permitted to continue in the property and therefore there is a deemed renewal.
8. They would further allege tha
