SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORRA TRADERS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
LAWRENCE KULANDAI NATHAN – Respondent
CRP 1918 2020



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 17.06.2021

PRONOUNCED ON: 01.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

C.R.P. (NPD) Nos. 1918 & 1919 of 2020

And

C.M.P.Nos. 11724 & 11725 of 2020

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1918 of 2020:

Orra Traders Pvt. Limited.,

Represented by its Director Saptendra Behra

Office: Ploat No. 640, Krushnakutira

Friends Colony

Cuttack – 763001

Branch Office at Plot No. 77

Dr.Gurunathan Street, Paneer Nagar,

Mugappair East, Chennai – 600 037.

Office at Door No. 144/2

Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010

... Petitioner/Respondent/Appellant/Respondent

-Vs-

Lawrence Kulandai Nathan

No.6, Jalan 3/10 PersiaranTiga

Bandar BaruSelayang, 68100,

Bau Selangor, Kuala Kumpur,

Malaysia

... Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu

2

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, against the fair and

decreetal order dated 23.01.2020 passed in M.P.No. 381 of 2018 in

R.C.A.No. 365 of 2018 by the learned IX Small Cause Court, Chennai.

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1919 of 2020:

Orra Traders Pvt. Limited.,

Represented by its Director Saptendra Behra

Office: Plot No. 640, Krushnakutira

Friends Colony

Cuttack – 763001

Branch Office at Plot No. 77

Dr.Gurunathan Street, Paneer Nagar,

Mugappair East, Chennai – 600 037.

Office at Door No. 144/2

Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010

... Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent

-Vs-

Lawrence Kulandai Nathan

No.6, Jalan 3/10 PersiaranTiga

Bandar BaruSelayang, 68100,

Bau Selangor, Kuala Kumpur,

Malaysia

... Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, against the fair and

3

decreetal order dated 3.03.2020 passed in R.C.A.No. 365 of 2018 by the

learned IX Small Cause Court, Chennai confirming the fair and decreetal

order passed in R.C.O.P.No. 448 of 2017 dated 14.02.2018 by the learned

XVI, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

***

For Petitioner in

both Cr.Ps.

:

Mr. Silambanan

Senior Counsel

For Respondent in

both Cr.Ps.

:

M/s. Rank Associates

COMMON ORDER

Both the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the tenant,

who had suffered an adverse order dated 23.01.2020 in M.P.No. 381 of 2019

in R.C.A.No. 365 of 2018 and a consequential order dated 03.03.2020 in

R.C.A.No. 365 of 2018.

2.

The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a registered

agreement of lease on 27.05.2014 with respect to the land and building

bearing Door No. 144/2, old Door Nos. 82, 144 and 144/1, Purasawalkam

High Road, Kellys, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 001, measuring about 1 ground

and 654 sq.ft., Purasawalkam Division, Perambur Taluk, Chennai – 600 001.

4

The petitioner was the lessee/tenant and the respondent was the

lessor/landlord. The lease was for commercial purpose. The period of lease

was 15 years. It had been agreed that there would be a lock in period of

three years. This would indicate that during that period of three years, the

lessor would be permitted unhindered right of lessee over the property under

lease. There was also an agreement with respect to renewal of the lease after

the period of 15 years. There was also a rent free period of 90 days / 3

months. This meant that the first rent would fall due on 10.09.2014. It had

been further provided that during the lock in period, the lease agreement

cannot be terminated and if either party seeks to terminate the agreement

within the lock in period, then compensation aggregating to the lease rent for

the number of unexpired month on the total lease term of 36 months shall be

paid. The rent was fixed at Rs.4,50,000/- per month. A security deposit of

Rs.45/- lakhs had been paid by the lessee to the lessor. It had also been

provided that the Lessor would not terminate the agreement so long as the

Lessee continues to pay the monthly rents without default. However, it had

al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top