Absence of stay permits recovery of court-fixed rent despite pending appeal on quantum; admitted tenant payments require adjustment against arrears.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated October 08, 2012 passed by 'the Sub Court, Tiruvallur' (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') in A.S. No.4 of 2011, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated August 07, 2009 passed by 'the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in O.S. No.163 of 2006, the Respondent / Plaintiff therein has preferred the present Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their array in the Original Suit before the Trial Court.

3. Vacant land of an extent of ‘25 Cents in Survey No.509/B2, situate at Ikkadu Village, Tiruvallur Taluk & District’ is the ‘Suit Property’ herein.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN BRIEF

4. The Defendant's father was a tenant under the Plaintiff - Devasthanam. There had been a series of Suits filed by the Plaintiff - Devasthanam against the Defendant's father and the Defendant for recovery of rent. The said Suits were contested by the Defendant and his father, decreed and were later even confirmed in Appeal. Thereafter, monthly rent for the Suit Property was fixed by Court vide Judgment and Decree dated April 07, 2000 passed in O.S. No.208 of 1999 at Rs.375/-.

4.1. Feeling aggrieved, the Defendant preferred an Appeal in A.S. No.16 of 2000 and the same was allowed in part on January 29, 2001 holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to collect rent at the rate of Rs.375/- per month from March 15, 1999 i.e., from the date of notice and not retrospectively.

4.2. Thereafter, the Plaintiff issued a notice on December 29, 2003 demanding arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.375/- per month. The Defendant received the same and sent a reply notice stating that the Defendant is ready and willing to remit rent at the previous rate of Rs.125/- per month. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the present Suit seeking arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.13,500/-, with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the period from January 01, 2003 to December 31, 2005 i.e., 36 months.

4.3. Besides that, while only the Suit vacant land was rented out to the Defendant's father and Defendant, without obtaining any permission, they have erected a permanent superstructure in the Suit Property. Hence the Plaintiff had filed a Suit for eviction in O.S. No.253 of 1999 and the same is pending.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT IN BRIEF

5. The Defendant filed a written statement wherein it was stated that the Defendant already paid a sum of Rs.16,058/- towards admitted arrears of rent till March 13, 2006 at the rate of Rs.125/- per month. The question of enhancement of rent is disputed in S.A. No.1275 of 2002 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim rent at the rate of Rs.375/- per month. There is no cause of action for the Suit. The amount claimed in the Suit is excessive. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the Suit.

TRIAL COURT

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get rent arrears since the IInd appeal no.1275 /2002 is pending before the hon’ble High Court?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get rent arrears along with interest?

(ii) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to ?"

7. At trial, one Mr.R.Srinivasan, Clerk attached to the Plaintiff - Devasthanam was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-A.1 - Legal Notice dated December 29, 2003 was marked on the side of the Plaintiff. On the side of the Defendant, the Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no document was marked.

8. After full-fledged trial, the Trial Court held