The court upheld the enforceability of lease terms dictating tenant maintenance responsibilities and affirmed the plaintiff's right to arrears under the lease agreement.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 29.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN A.S.No.38 of 2021 J.R.Venkatapathy … Appellant /Defendant V.

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment, Corporation Limited, By its Branch Manager, Peenagram Road, Dharmapuri- 636 702 … Respondent /Plaintiff Prayer : This First Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code , 1908 against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri in O.S.No.179 of 2018 dated 18.06.2020 is contrary to law, manifestly erroneous and its findings is wholly improper, irregular, perfunctory and without basis and in any event liable to be set aside.

For Appellant : M/s.V.Srimathi For Respondent : Mr.K.Magesh

JUDGMENT

Unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the appeal. The suit is filed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited/plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.16,14,240/- for arrears of rent for suit premises with interest at 18% per annum. The trial Court decreed the suit that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount alone after deducting the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the suit amount together with 9% interest from the date of suit, till decree. After that, 6% interest from the date of decree, till the date of realisation.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The suit Industrial shed belongs to the plaintiff. The defendant is tenant of the suit shed under the plaintiff from 12.09.2012, by a mutual rental agreement deed between them. According to the rental agreement, the defendant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as rent to the suit premises and paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as rent advance, the rent period fixed is only ll months and both were agreed to extend the rent period by a fresh rent agreement after the lease period of 11 months. The defendant has paid the rent upto the month of June 2013 and after that the defendant willfully defaulted the payment of rent. After the month of June 2013, the defendant neither paid the rent nor he renewed the lease, which ended on 12.08.2013. So on 13.11.2013, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice, but even after acknowledging the notice, the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the building. The rent was modified from Rs. 20,000/- per month to at Rs. 23,000/- per month from October 2015.

3(i). The plaintiff has sent a notice on 11.12.2013 and by which, terminated the lease and directed the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the suit shed, but the defendant refused to receive the notice. So, on 25.12.2013 notice was served in person through its staff and after receipt of the notice, the defendant promised to vacate the premises on or before 07.07.2014. But did not kept his promise and did not vacate the premises and did not pay the arrears of rent. While so, the defendant by his letter dated NIL, alleged that he has spent a sum of Rs.6 lakhs for repairing and cleaning the premises. For that on 11.04.2014, the plaintiff has suitably issued reply notice. But even after that he did not pay the rent nor is he vacated the premises.

3(ii). On 23.12.2014, the plaintiff has caused a legal notice and demanded the arrears of rent and to vacate the property. For that the defendant by his letter dated 29.12.2014, requested the plaintiff time till 20.01.2015 for vacating the suit premises and to settle the arrears of rent, for that the defendant states that he was in bed ridden and suffering from serious illness, so his request was allowed by the plaintiff, granted time upto 15.02.2015 to vacate the shed and to re-delivery of the shed. But all of a sudden, the defendant has placed a Board at the wall of the suit shed and welcome the third parties that the shed will be To-let, that his act is illega