SANKARLAL JAIN Vs. R KALAVATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these L.P. Appeals arise out of a common judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court rendered in A.S. Nos. 801 and of 1979, 500 of 1978 and 253, 800 and of 1979 dated 27-3-1986, which in turn arose out of a common judgment in O.S Nos. 9467 of 1972, 9826 of 1975 and 3748 o !974, on the file of the XII Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Madras.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of the said suits may now be noted. All these appeals relate to a single house property bearing Door No. 7, Sivagnanam Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17 (hereinafter called ?the suit property). Originally, the suit property belonged to a joint family consisting of Ramasami Mudaliar and his two sons by names Loganatha Mudaliar and Jayarama Mudaliar. All these joint family members executed a lease deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellant herein who is comm on in all these appeals, on 20-9-1964. The relevant exhibit is Ex. B1. The lease was to commence from 1-12-1964 for a period of four years on a monthly rental of Rs. 140 payable to Loganatha Mudaliar. One of the terms of the lease deed was that the lessors at their cost will put up a construction in the terraced portion corresponding to the ground floor and erect a compound wall and two gates and also instal an electric water pumpset at a cost not exceeding Rs. 12,000 and the work must be completed on or before 30-11-1964. Pursuant to the execution of the lease deed, an advance of Rs. 500 was paid by the lessee, namely, the appellant herein. Yet another clause in the lease deed enabled the lessors requiring funds for the construction as aforesaid and making the lessee to provide the same on condition that any amounts so paid should be repaid completely within a year from 1-12-1964 by the lessors, and in the event of failure to repay the same within the said period, the principal will carry interest at 9 % per annum. The lessee/appellant agreed to deliver possession of the property demised to the lessors on the expiry of the lease period.

(3.) AGAINST the decree in ejectment, passed by the trial Court, the appellant herein preferred A.S. 801 of 1979. Kalavathi Ammal, the plaintiff in OS. 9467 of 1972, aggrieved by the fixation of rent at Rs. 140/- per mensem, also filed an appeal, namely. A.S. 802 of 1979. Likewise, the said Kalavathi Ammal filed A.S. 253 of 1979 against O.S 9826 of 1975 in so far as the trial Court granted decree only at the rate of R. 140/- per mensem. The appellant-Shankarlal Jain also preferred an appeal against the judgment in O.S. 9826 of 1975, in A S. 500 of 1978 on the ground that he was not liable to pay the rent till he was reimbursed with the amount spent. Similarly, in the suit filed by Loganatha Mudaliar, namely, O.S. 3748 of 1974, aggrieved by the decree on the basis of Rs. 140/- per mensem, Loganatha Mudaliar filed A.S. 803 of 1979, and Shankarlal Jain, the appellant herein filed A.S. 800 of 1979, contending that he was not liable to pay rent at all.