Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
The Indian Officers' Association, represented by its General Secretary Mr.R.Murthy - Appellant
Versus
M/s.Modfurn Systems India Private Limited - Respondent
C.S.No.528 of 2019
Decided on : 03-01-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.M.Meena Rukmani
For the Respondent : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.M.Meena Rukmani
For the Respondent: Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
The court ruled that the defendants are liable for unpaid rent and maintenance charges, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the party asserting claims, which was met by the plaintiff.
Headnote:(A) Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 1 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IV Rule 1 and Order VII Rule 1 - Recovery of arrears of rent and maintenance charges - Plaintiff-Association claims Rs.6,22,68,474/- from defendants, tenants of its property, for unpaid rent from 01.08.2008 to 29.02.2016 - Defendants denied liability, claiming full and final settlement after paying Rs.1 crore - Court found defendants liable, ruling that they did not prove the settlement claim and were required to pay the arrears as per the agreements made. (Paras 1, 30, 61)
(B) Tenancy - Statutory tenants - The court ruled that both defendants are considered a single entity for the purpose of the tenancy, despite being registered as separate companies, and thus liable for the entire claim. (Paras 46, 59)
(C) Burden of proof - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, which in this case was the plaintiff, who sufficiently established its claim through evidence. (Paras 24, 58)
JUDGMENT :
The plaint (numbered as C.S.528 of 2019) is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), for passing judgment and decree as follows:
(a) directing the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,99,37,466/- (Rupees Five Crores Ninety Nine Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Six only) and also directing the 2nd defendant to pay a sum of Rs.23,31,008/-(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty One Thousand and Eight Only) together with interest 12% per annum thereon to the plaintiff from the date of presentation of the plaint till date of realisation in full.
(b) directing the defendants to pay the costs of these proceedings to the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff in a nut-shell, is as follows:
(a) The plaintiff-Association was established in the year 1907 and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 [Act No.XXI of 1860 – An Act for the Registration of Library, Scientific and Charitable Societies ] and its Registration Number is 2/1909-1910. The bye-laws of the plaintiff-Association is referred to as document No.1. The plaintiff is the owner of the building known as 'Justice Pratap Singh Building' (for short, the said building), which is situated at No.69, Thiru-Vi-Ka High Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. The said building was constructed as a commercial cum office complex consisting of ground and two upper floors. The land having a total extent of 25 grounds and 797 sq.ft on which the above building stands was acquired by the plaintiff-Association out of the beneficial and liberal contributions made by its members. The entire building has several shop portions. As many as 58 tenants are occupying the said building. The defendants herein are tenants under the plaintiff occupying several shops in the ground, second and third floors of the said building in the I O A complex.
(b) The plaintiff states that from 01.08.2008 it revised the monthly rental and maintenance charges payable by the tenants occupying various shops in the said building in the I O A complex. Majority of the tenants started paying the revised rent and maintenance charges from 01.08.2008 itself. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy of those tenants, including the defendants, who refused to pay the revised rent and maintenance charges and continued to pay the rent and maintenance charges at the old rate, by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed suits against them for recovery of possession and for recovery of the difference of the amount being paid by them and the damages for use and occupation fixed and demanded by its. The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants and other tenants in its capacity as a Charitable Trust.
(c) Thus, the defendants through their letter dated 03.01.2014, the defendants offered to pay revised rent as demanded by the plaintiff in respect of the shops occupied by them in the ground and first floors and requested the plaintiff to reduce the rent to Rs.20/- per square foot in respect of the second floor occupied by them. The said letter dated 03.01.2014 is filed herewith and is referred to as document No.2. The plaintiff was not agreeable for reducing the rent as requested by the defendants. Thereafter, through a letter dated 01.09.2014, the defendants offered to pay Rs.25/- per square foot for the second floor from the date of revision of rent (i.e 01.08.2008). In and by the said letter the defendants requested the plaintiff to waive maintenance charges in respect of the 2nd floor. The defendants had further offered to liquidate the arrears upto the date of signing the revised agreements by making an additional payment every month of an amount equivalent to the rent being paid then in addition to the rent as per the revised agreements. The said letter dated 01.09.2014 referred to as document No.3.
(d) After receiving the above mentioned letters, the plaintiff inf
