JUDGEMENT

The suit is filed for directing the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,98,01,000/- together with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.6,59,73,000/- from the date of plaint till date of realization, the transaction being a commercial one.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that they are the owners of the suit schedule property. Under a lease deed dated 10.04.2011, the defendant was given a lease of the premises measuring 39,400 sq.ft., on a monthly rental of a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the terrace portion measuring 12600 sq.ft.

3. The plaintiff would submit that the defendant had paid an interest free deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- and as per terms of the agreement the total lease rental payable was a sum of Rs.7,75,000/-, which was to be paid on or before the 10th of every succeeding English calender month. The lease was for a period of 15 years with a lock-in period of 10 years commencing from 10.04.2011. There was also a clause that in case either of the party wished to bring the lease agreement to an end, the person so desiring shall pay damages at the rate of the rental for 2 years. That apart, it is also the contention of the plaintiff that the lease deed provided for enhancement of rent as also the fact that the defendant / lessee had to pay service tax on the rentals.

4. The plaintiff would contend that with effect from October

2014, the defendant had stopped paying rents as also the amounts towards the service tax and ultimately on 03.07.2017 surrendered the premises, without clearing the arrears. The defendant thereafter issued a legal notice dated 16.10.2015 putting across false allegations that the plaintiff was resorting to extra – judicial methods to evict them from the premises and therefore seeking an injunction to protect their possession.

5. The plaintiff would submit that the said statement is absolute falsehood and on the contrary it was the plaintiff who was facing backlash from the defendant and fearing for his life, the Managing Director of the plaintiff had lodged a police complaint dated 20.10.2015. The plaintiff would submit that the defendant refused to pay service tax contending that he is not liable to pay the same. When confronted with the legal implications, the defendant sought time to get opinion of his lawyer. Though the defendant had obtained an opinion stating that he should pay the tax, he has failed to pay the same.

6. As the arrears rents continued to mount, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 15.06.2016 calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,58,83,625/- being the arrears of rent and a sum of Rs.26,27,216/- towards interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 10.11.2014 till the date of payment, Rs.56,56,082/- being arrears of service tax and Rs.17,02,337/- being interest of arrears of service tax and in all claiming a sum of Rs.2,58,69,260/-.

7. The plaintiff had also reserved their right to terminate the lease on account of breach. Since the lease agreement between the parties had envisaged settlement of dispute through arbitration, the plaintiff had nominated one M.Soundarapandian, Retired District Judge as a sole arbitrator.

8. Though the defendant received the said notice, they did not come forward to clear the outstanding and on the contrary refused to concur with the nomination of the sole arbitrator. Thereafter, the plaintiff after obtaining legal opinion had met with the defendant to appraise with him of the implications of tax structure and the liability of the lessee to make such payment to the lessor for the services offered and rendered by it to the lessee. As on 31.07.2016, the outstanding was a sum of Rs.3,20,44,893/-.

9. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to direct the defendant to furnish security and the same was also ordered. The defendant filed an application in A.No.2476 of 2017 to set aside the ex parte order and