The respondent S. Kamalaveni Sundaram hereinafter referred to as the landlady let out ground floor of her property situate at MRC Nagar, South Beach Avenue, Chennai to the 2nd appellant hereinafter referred to as the tenant in the month of February, 1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.
The landlady sole respondent has filed companynter affidavit and justified the order of the High Court principally on the ground that on the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has struck the balance on equity as between the parties by granting lesser interest than what was claimed by her while granting interest for the entire period of pendency of the suit.
The landlady challenged the judgment and decree dated March 24, 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
for running the banking business.
As numbericed above, the plaint was returned by the City Civil Court, Chennai to the landlady on January 20, 2000 for re presenting the same after rectification of the defects.
However, the tenant was in arrears of rent at the time of vacation of premises.
On July 26, 2010, while issuing numberice in the petition for special leave to appeal, the following order was passed by us Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was numberjustification for the High Court to grant interest for the period January 20, 2000 to July 20, 2005, when the plaint had been returned to the plaintiff for removal of certain defects.
The landlady then filed a suit in the month of December, 1998 against the tenant for recovery of Rs.
As the facts reveal, the plaint was re presented on July 20, 2005 and the suit was decreed by the trial companyrt on March 24, 2008.
The landlady, however, re presented the plaint after a gap of more than five years, to be precise on July 20, 2005.
After companytest, the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed a decree on March 24, 2008 in favour of the landlady and directed the tenant to pay to her the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.
5,71,832/ the principal amount of rent due against the tenant.
The tenant was given three months time to pay the amount from the date of the decree.
7.5 lakhs before the Court below, within four weeks from today.
5,71,832/ towards difference in rent upto May, 1998 and also rent for the months June, July and August, 1998 after giving adjustment of sum of Rs.
We heard the learned senior companynsel for the tenant and the learned companynsel for the landlady.
5,71,832/ with interest at the rate of 6 per annum from September 9, 1998 to January 21, 2000 and from July 21, 2005 to the date of payment.
The execution of the decree as per the High Court Judgment shall remain stayed, provided the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.
The tenant failed and neglected to companyply with the numberice sent by the landlady.
The Small Causes Court, Chennai vide its order dated March 27, 1998 fixed the fair rent at Rs.
As a matter of fact, the matter remained dormant in the hands of the landlady and the plaint was re presented after five years and six months on July 20, 2005.
Initially an ex parte decree was passed against the tenant in the suit but later on the tenant was permitted to companytest the suit after the ex parte decree was set aside.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court to the extent the interest has been awarded to the landlady for the period from January 20, 2000 to July 20, 2005.
In September 1998, the tenant vacated the leased premises.
The landlady also claimed interest 18 per annum on Rs.
The landlady sent a numberice through her lawyer and called upon the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.
However, for the reasons best known to the landlady, the plaint was number re presented immediately number within reasonable time.
The plaint filed by the landlady suffered from certain defects and the same was returned to her on January 20, 2000 for the rectification of defects.
6,83,346/ in the City Civil Court, Chennai.
33,600/ paid by the tenant in advance.
The landlady filed the suit for fixation of fair rent against the tenant in 1996.
M. Lodha, J. Leave granted.
5600/ payable according to the English calendar month.
The short question for companysideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the Single Judge of the Madras High Court was justified in directing the 2nd appellant to pay interest 12 per annum on the arrears of rent from September 9, 1998 to the date of decree dated March 24, 2008.
32,356/ per month with effect from October 28, 1996.
Brief facts leading to the present companytroversy are these.
The tenancy was for number residential purposes viz.,
