Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 839
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. DHANABAL, J.
T.S.Govindarajan – Appellant
Versus
Ramayee(Died) – Respondent
A.S(MD) No.135 of 2010
Decided on : 07-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Ramesh
For the Respondent: Mr.J. Balameenakshi
IMPORTANT POINT
Once fair rent is fixed by the Rent Controller, the landlord has the right to recover the rent through civil court, and the limitation for recovery continues to run despite any pending appeals unless explicitly stayed.
Headnote:
RENT - RECOVERY OF ARREARS - C.P.C. Section 96, Rent Control Act - The court discussed the provisions of the C.P.C. regarding appeals and the Rent Control Act concerning the fixation of fair rent. It emphasized that once fair rent is fixed by the Rent Controller, the landlord has the right to recover the rent through civil court, regardless of any pending appeals. The court interpreted that the trial court's limitation of recovery to three years was erroneous and not supported by law, leading to the decision to modify the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant, who was a tenant. The Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent at Rs.7,900 per month, and the defendant had paid a portion of the arrears but contested the amount due, claiming an appeal was pending against the Rent Controller's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in limiting the recovery of arrears to three years without justification. It held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount of arrears as the fair rent had been fixed and no stay had been granted on the order during the appeal.
Issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the arrears of rent as fixed by the Rent Controller? 2) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the fair rent during the pending appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the right to recover rent arises once it is fixed by the Rent Controller, and unless a stay is granted on that order, the landlord can pursue recovery through civil court. The limitation period for recovery does not pause due to pending appeals.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the trial court's decree to grant the plaintiff the full amount of Rs.7,71,200 in arrears, with interest, from the estate of the deceased defendant.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer : This Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No.72 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirapalli dated 31.03.2009
This Appeal suit has been filed as against the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.72 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Tiruchirapalli, Wherein the appellant herein has filed the suit as against the defendant for the relief of recovery of money towards the arrears of rent. The trial Court has partly decreed the suit as against the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the Tribunal.
3. The gist of the plaint are as follows:
Originally the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and the suit property was rented out to defendant for a rent of Rs.1500/- per month. The defendant also paid the rent amount regularly. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application before the Rent Controller, Trichy in RCOP No.53/1997 for fixation of fair rent and the same was allowed and rent was fixed at Rs.7,900/- per month. Thereafter the appeal was preferred in RCA No.7 of 2006 by the defendant herein and no stay was granted by the appellate authority. As per the order passed in RCOP 53 of 1997 the arrears of rent from 01.03.1997 to 31.07.2006 is Rs.9,92,700/- The defendant has paid a sum of Rs.1,21,500/-. Therefore the defendant has to pay remaining amount of Rs. 7,71,200/-
4. The gist of the written statement averments are as follows.
The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that the plaintiff is owner of the property and the defendant is the tenant and filing of RCOP 53 of 1998 is also admitted. The rent controller has fixed the fair rent at Rs.7900/- and same was challenged through appeal in RCA No.7 of 2006 and the same is pending. Whileso, until the rent is fixed by the appellate authority the defendant need not pay the said amount. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the pleadings and hearing both sides the trial Court has framed the following issues
6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff he examined P.W.1 and marked exhibits A.1 and A2. On the side of the defendant D.W.1 was examined and no documents was marked. After hearing both and evaluating the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial Court has partly decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff is only entitled to recover the arrears of rent for three years Being aggrieved over the said decree and judgement the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff on the following grounds:
a) the Court below failed to assign any reason for granting relief only for recovery of three years of fair rent alone while the claim is for 113 months
b) the Court below though referred the citation 2005(3)LW page 63 Chandra Mohan Vs.K.Ram Mohan has miserably failed to apply the principles laid down in the said ruling
c) the Court below failed to apply its mind while deciding the issues No. 1 and 2
d) the Court below failed to take into consideration that the respondent/tenant is keeping the money due to the plaintiff payable as fair rent
e) the Court below ought to have considered that the respondent/defendant has unjustly enriched herself by retaining the plaintiff's money for more than 12 years i.e. from 1997
f) the Court below ought to have found that plaintiff's claim has been crystallized even on the date of filing the suit and ought to have decreed the suit as claimed for
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the property and the respondent/defendant is the tenant and the same is not denied by the defendant and the appellant/plaintiff has filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent and the same was allowed by
