Lease agreements govern the terms of rent adjustments over statutory provisions unless explicitly limited by the agreements themselves.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The defendants in the suit, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7457 of 2019 on the file of the 17^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, are the appellants herein.

2. Pleadings:

The Plaint in brief:

2.1. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The building consists of ground floor and first floor. The ground floor was offered for lease to the defendants 2 to 4, by the plaintiff on 30.12.1997, on a rent of Rs.20,000/- per month. The first defendant vide reply dated 06.01.1998 accepted the offer, on certain basic terms and conditions. The building was occupied on 14.01.1998 with the plaintiff’s consent. The defendants 2 to 4 requested the plaintiff to accept the condition that the fair rent fixed by the Public Works Department would be agreeable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted to the said request, by letter dated 25.06.1998. The Public Works Department, Coimbatore, fixed the rent for three portions by proceedings dated 30.07.1998, at Rs.4,000/-, Rs.6,700/- and Rs.5,765/- per month respectively, for the defendants 2 to 4. Separate lease agreements were entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 23.10.1998 pertaining to 3 portions occupied by the defendants 2 to 4. Tenure of lease was from 14.01.1998 to 13.01.2001 and rent was fixed in terms of the certificates of Public Works Department dated 30.07.1998. It was agreed that the rents would be in terms of the valuation arrived at by the Public Works Department from time to time. As there was shortage of allotment of area and division amongst the defendants 2 to 4, the plaintiff by letter dated 15.02.1999 sought for rectification and fix the rent from day one.

2.2. On the expiry of the lease period, a lease agreements are entered into on 09.04.2001, renewing the lease from 14.01.2001 up to 13.01.2003. The defendants promised to re-fix the rent and pay the arrears. The lease agreements dated 09.04.2001, also expired on 13.01.2003 and by letter dated 16.04.2003, the plaintiff requested the first defendant to renew the lease agreements and also enhance the rent, as contemplated under the lease agreements, through the Public Works Department. The defendants, did not enhance the rent enhanced, despite several representations dated 04.08.2005, 22.05.2006, 01.08.2007 and 10.02.2009. On 31.03.2008, the fourth defendant requested the plaintiff to mention the enhanced rent, in response to the plaintiff’s letter, sent 5 years back, i.e., on 16.04.2003. The plaintiff replied by letter dated 09.04.2008, informing the first defendant about the enhanced rent for different periods, in terms of the market value. The fourth defendant has forwarded the letter of the plaintiff to the Public Works Department on 15.04.2008. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, vide proceedings dated 31.07.2008, refixed the rent with effect from 14.01.2001,14.01.2004 and 14.01.2007 for all the three portions occupied by the defendants 2 to 4. Based on the refixation done by the Public Works Department, the plaintiff, vide letter dated 18.02.2009 called upon the defendants to pay the arrears of rent, together with 24% compound interest.

2.3. The defendants did not come forward to pay the arrears and hence, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.13268 of 2009 and the writ Court by order dated 24.07.2009, directed the second defendant to consider the plaintiff's representation and thereafter, the first defendant, by proceedings dated 10.09.2009, fixed the enhanced rent separately for all three portions. Contrary to the rent fixed by the Public Works Department, the first defendant has calculated the enhanced rent based on the G.O(Ms.)No.329, dated 30.08.2001, Finance (Salaries) Department, which provided for an increase of 5 % per year of rent alone, on the existing rent and