K.R. SIVADESIKAN PILLAI Vs. RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the original suit O.S.No.2184/1998 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore is the appellant in the second appeal. The defendant therein is the respondent in the second appeal. The appellant filed the above said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,500/- from the respondent on the premise that he had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards rental advance on 28.8.1987 while taking a shop in door No.507, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore measuring 8' x 16' for rent from the respondent; that the lease arrangement was for 10 years and at the end of the lease period he surrendered possession of the said shop on 28.8.1997; that the defendant, who ought to have returned the said amount on 28.8.1997, failed to do so and that therefore, the respondent/defendant was liable to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 24% per annum from 28.8.1997.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the respondent herein/defendant contending that though there was a negotiation between the appellant and the respondent for letting out the said shop portion to the appellant and an agreement came to be executed, since the appellant had prepared it for a period of 10 years instead of the agreed period of three years, the respondent did not induct the appellant as tenant in respect of the said shop and the appellant also did not make any payment towards rental advance; that though the rental agreement came to be signed by the parties, it was not given effect to; that under the above said circumstances, the appellant who was aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondent to let out the said property, preferred a complaint with the police as if after his induction as a tenant, in his absence, the respondent broke open the shop and took away things worth Rs.4,500/-; that the said complaint was referred as mistake of fact, pursuant to which, the appellant filed a private complaint, which was ultimately dismissed by the learned Magistrate; that the said order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint was also confirmed in appeal and that thereafter, the appellant, with false averments, came forward with the suit for recovery of the above said amount.

(3.) Besides the above said contentions, the respondent also contended that the suit based on the rental agreement, which was not duly stamped and was unregistered, was not maintainable and that in any event, since even according to the admission made by the appellant in the criminal proceedings he was deprived of possession of the shop before February 1988 itself, cause of action for recovery of possession and also for refund of advance amount would have arisen in 1988 itself; that the suit was filed after the lapse of 10 years thereafter and that hence the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation.