Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 1971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
V. Sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai – Respondent
C.S. No. 403 of 2020 (Comm.Suits)
Decided On : 28-06-2023
For the Plaintiff:Chithra Sampath, Senior Advocate. for M/s. Mohammed Irfan Ali, Advocates. For the Defendant:M. Vijayamehanath, for M/s. AAV Partners, Advocates.
Defendant liable to pay damages for use and occupation to plaintiff from May-2006 to September-2020 at an enhanced rent rate of Rs.5,500 per month, totaling Rs.14,57,851. Plaintiff also entitled to Rs.2,50,000 towards cost of excavation and storage charges.
Headnote:
Damages - Use and Occupation - Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - 4 of 2016 - Expiry of lease agreement, failure to remove equipments, and use of property for commercial purpose - Plaintiff entitled to damages for use and occupation from defendant for the period May-2006 to September-2020 at an enhanced rent rate of Rs.5,500 per month, totaling Rs.14,57,851 - Plaintiff also entitled to Rs.2,50,000 towards cost of excavation and storage charges - Suit partly decreed in favor of plaintiff
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed suit seeking damages for use and occupation of property by defendant. Lease agreement between plaintiff and defendant expired in April-2006. Defendant failed to remove equipments from property and continued commercial use. Plaintiff claimed damages for use and occupation from May-2006 to September-2020 at an enhanced rent rate of Rs.5,500 per month, totaling Rs.14,57,851. Plaintiff also claimed Rs.10,00,000 towards cost of excavation and storage charges. Defendant resisted suit, claiming plaintiff benefited from operation of retail outlet and received profits as a partner of the dealership firm.
Finding of the Court:
Defendant liable to pay damages for use and occupation to plaintiff from May-2006 to September-2020 at an enhanced rent rate of Rs.5,500 per month, totaling Rs.14,57,851. Plaintiff entitled to Rs.2,50,000 towards cost of excavation and storage charges. Defendant's claim of plaintiff benefiting from operation of retail outlet not accepted. Plaintiff's acceptance of rent from defendant not estoppel to claim damages for use and occupation.
Issues: 1. Whether defendant liable to pay damages towards storage, security, evacuation, and other charges for failure to remove machineries from plaintiff's property. 2. Whether defendant liable to pay damages to plaintiff for use and occupation of property as per the market value for the period 2006 to 2020. 3. Whether defendant entitled to occupy the property from 2006 to 2020 without paying rent in light of interim order passed by the High Court. 4. What other reliefs.
Ratio Decidendi: Lease agreement between plaintiff and defendant expired in April-2006. Defendant failed to remove equipments from property and continued commercial use. Plaintiff entitled to damages for use and occupation from defendant for the period May-2006 to September-2020 at an enhanced rent rate of Rs.5,500 per month, totaling Rs.14,57,851. Plaintiff also entitled to Rs.2,50,000 towards cost of excavation and storage charges. Plaintiff's acceptance of rent from defendant not estoppel to claim damages for use and occupation.
Final Decision: Plaintiff entitled to a sum of Rs.8,11,351 from defendant. Defendant directed to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff. Suit partly decreed in favor of plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), praying for,
(a) Directing the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000 (Rupees Five Crores Only) towards damages for use and occupation of the schedule property from the period April, 2006 till February, 2020 together with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of realization of the amount.
(b) Directing the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) towards cost of excavation, storage charges and also security charges for the equipments of defendant lying in the Suit schedule property from March 2020 till 24/07/2020.
(c) Pass such further or other Orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper and render justice.
(d) Cost of the suit.)
1.The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking damages for use and occupation of the suit property to the tune of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) and for other reliefs.
2. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the land measuring an extent of 1437 sq.mts (15,450 sq.ft) situated at Old No.94, New No.76, G.N Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. In the year 1965, the defendant entered into a Lease Agreement with father of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. As per the terms of Lease Agreement, the property was let out to the defendant for the purpose of running a petrol retail outlet. The lease period was initially fixed for 10 years i.e., from 14.04.1965 to 13.04.1975. It also contained a provision for automatic renewal of lease for a further period of 10 years upto 13.04.1985.
3. The father of the plaintiff died on 05.09.1977 and thereafter, there was a partition in the family of the plaintiff among legal heirs of plaintiff''s father. The suit property fell into the share of the plaintiff and the lease in respect of the suit property was attorned in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was running a petroleum outlet in the suit property through its dealer namely M/s Friendly Service Co. The said dealer M/s Friendly Service Co., is a Partnership Firm consisting the plaintiff and his two sons as partners.
4. Subsequently, by way of registered Lease Deed dated 29.06.1987, a portion of the property was surrendered to the plaintiff and lease was renewed in respect of remaining portion with retrospective effect from 13.04.1985 to 12.04.2006. The subject matter of the fresh lease is shown as the suit property in the schedule to the plaint. The lease between the plaintiff and defendant got expired by efflux of time on 12.04.2006. As plaintiff and defendant failed to agree for extension of lease, the plaintiff took possession of the suit property from dealer of the defendant namely M/s Friendly Service Co. The plaintiff sent a telegram dated 13.04.2006 to defendant requesting them to remove the equipment and materials from the suit property. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that despite taking possession of the suit property, he could not enjoy the property effectively, due to the failure of the defendant in removing their equipments and materials used for running the petroleum retail outlet.
5. Thereafter, in order to squat on the property, the defendant filed a suit in C.S.No.305 of 2006 before this Court seeking mandatory injunction for renewal of lease for a further period of 20 years. Pending the suit, the defendant filed an applications in O.A.No.348 of 2006 and A.No.1700 of 2006 seeking for injunction restraining the plaintiff from entering, obstructing or interfering with the defendant in running the petroleum outlet in the suit property. In the said applications, this Court passed an order dated 28.04.2006 directing dealer M/s Friendly Service Co., to run the petroleum outlet under the supervision of the defen
