M SHANKARAN Vs. M KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2002 passed in O.S. No. 1174 of 2000 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein, as plaintiff, for a direction, directing the defendant, who is the appellant herein, to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- together with subsequent interest on Rs.20,00,000/- at 12% per annum till the date of realisation. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and therefore the present appeal suit.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to as Plaintiff and defendant, as has been arrayed in the suit before the trial court.

(3.) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for a direction directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.20 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation. According to the plaintiff, he is a businessman running a leading chain of sweet shops in Coimbatore under the name and style of Sri Krishna Sweets. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is the owner of the building bearing Door No.182, Raja Street, Coimbatore. It is his contention that during the year 1997, he approached the defendant to let out the suit property for lease for running a sweet stall. On 23.06.1997, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff expressly agreeing to offer the property owned by him for lease. In the said letter, the defendant demanded a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as advance apart from monthly lease rent of Rs.10,000/- as a condition precedent for granting lease. The Plaintiff also accepted such offer and made payments by means of cheques on various dates from 27.06.1997 onwards and last payment was made by a cheque dated 29.08.1997 bearing Cheque No. 540646 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.12,00,000/-. In effect, the plaintiff made a total payment of Rs.20 lakhs by means of six cheques, which are morefully tabulated in Para No.4 of the plaint. After making such payment, on 29.08.1997, the plaintiff was put in possession of the leasehold premises. The plaintiff and the defendant also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 29.08.1997 in which the various payments made by the plaintiff, on various dates, were incorporated. According to the plaintiff, the tenancy is one at will which is morefully set out in clause 6 of The Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the defendant, which reads as follows:-