The court upheld the enforceability of a lease agreement and clarified that suit recovery for rental arrears was valid, falling within the limitation period starting from the refusal of agreed rent payment.

JUDGMENT :

(G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

The suit was filed for recovery of rental arrears against the appellants and was allowed by the trial Court. The appellants are the officials of Agricultural Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, which was tenant under the respondent’s mother from 01.02.2005 to 21.02.2014. During the subsistence of tenancy, the respondent’s mother died on 10.11.2012. The respondent got the property from her mother through a Will dated 05.07.1999.

2. The Agricultural Department occupied the premises for nine years, between 01.02.2005 and 21.02.2014, alleging that the rent paid was not at agreed rate as fixed in the agreement. Hence, the respondent filed the suit for recovery of rental arrears. The trial Court, after examination of witnesses and documents on either side, allowed the suit. A decree was passed directing the defendants 1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.11,86,584/- to the plaintiff, with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of suit, till the date of realisation.

3. The appeal suit is directed against the said decree.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as plaintiff and defendants.

5. Case of the plaintiff:-

The Joint Director of the Agricultural Department, Krishnagiri (appellant herein), on behalf of his Department, entered into the premises of Govindammal (the mother of the respondent) for rent on 01/02/2005 agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs.20,100/-. The Rental agreement was entered between Logonathan, Joint Director, as tenant and Govindammal, as Landlord. The rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.5.49/- per sq.ft., based on the prevailing rent around that area. Later, a consent letter was obtained from Govindammal stating that she agrees to receive monthly rent of Rs.20,100/- or the rent fixed by PWD, whichever is lesser. There was chain of inter-departmental communication between the Joint Director (first appellant) and the Commissioner, Agricultural Department (second appellant) to finalise the rent for over two years, after entering into the premises after fixing the tentative rent of Rs.20,100/- p.m.

6. The building measuring 3657 sq.ft furnished with 7 fans, 12 Tube lights and 3 bathrooms with attached toilets in the ground and first floor; AC Hall with marble flooring, 10 fans and 16 tube lights in the second floor. Based on the formula adopted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the fair rent for the premises will come around Rs.22,000/-. While so, on 21.12.2010, the Commissioner, Agricultural Produce/Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department (third appellant) issued proceedings fixing the monthly rent for the building at the rate of Rs.12,410/- p.m and paid Rs.4,96,400/- in lumpsum towards arrears of rent. The rent was fixed neither based on the PWD report nor as per the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Therefore, the rental arrears tendered by the Department was accepted with protest reserving right to object. Further, Govindammal made a request to hike the rent 15% every year. The first respondent issued proceedings dated 28.04.2014 to increase the rent at 15% from 01.02.2008 to 21.02.2014 and fixed rent at the rate of Rs.14,270/- per month. The fixation of revised rent also not proper and correct. The rental p