DIRECTOR THAMBAKU VIKAS NIDESHALAYA Vs. FATHIMA YAKUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. Originally the plaintiff filed a suit before this Court in C.S.No.1636 of 1991 seeking for a relief of recovery of Rs.3,18,993.75p being the outstanding total arrears of rent from the defendant. THE above suit was transferred to the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in view of pecuniary jurisdiction being modified and the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.14426 of 1996. THEreafter, the plaintiff has filed an application to fix the fair rent for the building in H.R.C.No,5367 of 1981 and the Small Cause Court has fixed the rent at Rs.10,475/-. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.Nos.643 of 1982 and 1329 of 1982. By an order dated 18.09.1982, the appeal was dismissed thereby confirming the enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs.10,475/- p.m. THErafter, the defendant has made a further request to give some more improvement to the property by providing car shed, by reconstructing the Garage in the ground floor and thereby spent a sum of morethan Rs.2 Lakhs. This improvement was done only by the specific understanding and agreement between the parties that the defendant shall pay enhanced rent as fixed by the C.P.W.D. After completion of work, the C.P.W.D. inspected the suit property and fixed the rent at Rs.16,000/- p.m. with effect from 25.10.1987.

(2.) AS the defendant failed to pay the enhanced rent of the Rs.16,000/- p.m. with effect from 25.10.1987, the plaintiff filed R.C.O.P.No,3160 of 1989 for eviction on the ground of willful default. The Rent Controller, though held that the rent was payable at Rs.16,000/- p.m., dismissed the eviction petition and the same was affirmed in Appeal in R.C.A.No,728 of 1990. The defendant insisted to execute the lease agreement. Since, there was no lease agreement from the inception, the plaintiff would contend that the defendant is a Statutory tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act and there is no such necessity to execute any lease deed. It is the further claimed that the defendant under a communication dated 21.03.1989 agreed to pay the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.16,000/- p.m. with effect from 27.08.1997 and by virtue of that letter communicated to the plaintiff, they are bound to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.16,000/- p.m. whereas they paid the rent only at the rate of Rs.10,475/- being the rent as fixed by the Rent Court. Therefore, difference in rent was pending and payable from 1987 to 1991. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking for arrears of rent on the ground that the difference in rent has not been paid.

(3.) HEARD both parties. The short point for consideration in the appeal is i) Whether appellant/defendant is liable to pay the difference in rent with interest? ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation..