SINGER INDIA LIMITED Vs. CHRIST CHURCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 1497 of 1998 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The defendant in O. S. No. 1497 of 1998 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of vacant possession in respect of the plaint schedule property from the defendant and also for past and future mesne profits and also for damages for illegal use and occupation of the premises.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:-The plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property bearing Door No. 55, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. The plaint schedule property is exempted from the scope and purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended under G. O. Ms. No. 2000, Home, dated 16. 8. 1976. The defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property for a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/ -. The tenancy being from month to month according to English calendar, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh has also been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff towards advance. The plaintiff has terminated the tenancy under the suit notice dated 30. 6. 1997 by the expiry of 1. 8. 1997. Even after the receipt of the said notice the defendant has failed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. Since the rent fixed by the parties for the plaint schedule property was very low, the plaintiff at the first instance negotiated with the defendant for the payment of a reasonable rent according to the prevailing rent in the locality. Since the negotiation failed, the plaintiff has decided to start a computer centre in the plaint schedule property not only for the benefit of the children studying in the school but also for the general public. Therefore, the plaintiff had terminated the said tenancy of the defendant, calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh per month as damages for the illegal use and occupation of the plaint schedule property by the defendant after the termination of the said tenancy from 1. 8. 1997. The defendant is still continuing to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only to the plaintiff every month, and as such after giving credit to the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid as advance and a further sum of Rs. 60,000/- from 1. 8. 1997 to 28. 2. 1998 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month total aggregating to Rs. 1,60,000/- there is still a balance to the plaintiff towards the said total damages of Rs. 7,00,000/- (from 1. 8. 1997 to 28. 2. 1998 @ Rs. 1 lakh per month), and which too the defendant has failed and neglected to pay. Hence, the suit.

(3.) THE defendant in their written statement would contend that the defendant M/s. Singer India Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by its Law Officer and Power of Attorney Mr. R. Gunasekaran. The present suit field by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The notice issued by the plaintiff is not in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as the same does not expire with the end of the month of tenancy. The suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the same is not in accordance with the provision under Order 29 Rule 2 of CPC. No service was effected at the Registered Office of the defendant company. The suit is not maintainable since the plaintiff after the issuance of the notice has been accepting the rent and thereby has waived the notice of alleged termination. The defendant is now having its branch office at Chennai at Door No. 17-A, Muthiyal Naidu Street Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai-15. The defendant became a tenant of the suit property in the year 1952. At the request of the plaintiff the rent was increased to Rs. 2,500/ -. Now the rent has further been increased and the defendant is paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month at present. The plaintiff is still holding the advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh paid by the defendant. There is no valid notice as contemplated under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, issued by the plaintiff. As such the suit is not maintainable under law. The plaintiff demanded higher rent for the suit premises. However, considering the request on charity ground the defendant offered to increase the rent to Rs. 25,000/- per month. But reasons best known to the plaintiff, the defendant's offer of rent of Rs. 25,000/- per month was rejected by the plaintiff. The claim of Rs. 1 lakh per month towards damages for illegal use and occupation is also not maintainable. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim the rent more than the prevailing rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The plaintiff is not entitled to adjust the advance of Rs. 1 lakh towards the alleged claim of damages. The defendant is not liable to pay the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as claimed in the plaint towards damages. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. The calculation memo filed by the plaintiff is totally false. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- paid by the defendant was towards rent and not towards damages as falsely alleged in the memo of calculation by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim Rs. 5,40,000/- together with interest towards damages. The defendant is paying the rent without any default. Hence, the question of interest does not arise. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.