THANTHI TRUST Vs. APEX AGENCIES AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is the first defendant in the suit which is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,44,91,565/- being the rental arrears due from the defendants as per the order of the learned Rent Controller from 28.04.1995 till January 2004, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation, and for costs of the suit. This application is filed by the applicant/D1 for rejection of the plaint in C.S.No.231 of 2004, stating that the claim in the suit is based on the order of the learned Rent Controller, Chennai, dated 04.11.1997 in R.C.O.P.No.1468 of 1995, in which, a sum of Rs.2,33,253/- per month was fixed as fair rent for the premises under the occupation of the first defendant, which was confirmed in appeal in the order of the appellate authority, dated 20.12.2002 in R.C.A.No.242 of 1999. The applicant/D1 is a public charitable Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee. No document is annexed to the plaint to show that the applicant/D1 is liable to pay the alleged arrears of rent as claimed in the plaint. The plaint does not disclose the cause of action to claim the alleged arrears of rent as fixed under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and on the allegations made in the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by law, that under Article 52 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed for a suit for arrears of rent is three years when the arrears of rent become due. In this case, the order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 04.11.1997, based on which, the suit is filed, and the fair rent fixed under the RCOP will come into effect from 28.04.1995, being the date of filing of the RCOP. Under Section 9 of the Limitation Act, the time mentioned in RCOP will continue to run. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the order passed in RCOP, i.e. 04.11.1997, but the suit has been filed only in March 2004. Under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, every suit instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Hence, the plaint has to be rejected.

(2.) The respondents 1 and 4 to 8/plaintiffs 1 and 4 to 8 have filed counter affidavit stating that the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the application to reject the plaint, are made for dragging on the proceedings, delay and protract the proceedings with ulterior motive and mala-fide intention, on mere conjectures and surmises, and the said application is filed almost after ten years, that too when the plaintiffs' witnesses are in the witness box for chief examination, that the plaint discloses the cause of action and the cause of action is the fixation of fair rent by the learned Rent Controller, which has become final in the appeal, that the suit is filed within three years after the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the arrears of rent became due, that the suit is maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Court, that it is not the case of the applicant/D1 that they have no connection with the 'The Daily Thanthi' nor that the applicant/D1 is not managing or controlling M/s.Daily Thanthi, that the business of M/s.Daily Thanthi is owned by the applicant/D1 with all its assets and liabilities, that it is not correct to state that the applicant/D1 is not a party in the proceedings of fair rent and eviction proceedings and no cause of action is made against them and they have been defending the fair rent proceedings as Daily Thanthi and / or as Thanthi Trust as owners of Daily Thanthi (tamil newspaper) as they have been mentioned in the present suit in the cause title also, the applicant/D1 has not approached this Court with clean hands, that when the appellate Court has not suspended the operation of the order made in the RCOP, under Section 9 of the Limitation Act, the time mentioned in the RCOP will continue to run, that the right to sue accrues only when the fair rent is ascertained by the order of the appellate authority, dated 20.12.2002, that the suit is well within the period of limitation from then, that the limitation as per Section 9 of the Limitation Act will start to run only from the date of the judgment rendered in the appeal and hence, the suit is not barred by limitation, that the ground of limitation can be invoked only in exceptional cases where detailed scrutiny of evidence is required, and they prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) The applicant/D1 has filed reply affidavit to the above counter affidavit, stating that after several adjournments, the plaintiffs never brought any witness to the Court for continuation of the chief examination, that the allegation of the plaintiffs in the above counter affidavit that the application is filed based on conjectures and surmises, is vague, that there is no intention to protract the proceedings, that if the infirmities mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC are present, then the Court may reject the plaint at any stage of the suit, that no document is annexed to the plaint to show that the applicant/D1 is liable to pay the alleged arrears of rent claimed in the plaint, that the orders of the Rent Control authorities clearly show that they are not against the applicant/D1 in the suit, which is a public charitable Trust represented by its Managing Trustee, the orders which are annexed in the plaint do not refer to the fact that the business of M/s.Dhina Thanthi or Daily Thanthi is owned by the applicant/D1 in the suit, that the first defendant has been defending the fair rent proceedings as "Daily Thanthi and/or as Thanthi Trust as the owners of Daily Thanthi, that the time mentioned in the RCOP order will continue to run under Section 9 of the Limitation Act, unless there is any order made by the appellate authority suspending the order made in the RCOP and that the plaint may be rejected.